m. 


\,-.- 


No. 


Mt 


Division 


R< 


inge 


Shelf.. 


Received 


^^^. 


¥ 


HISTORY  /i^^. 


or  THE;-  j.-rj^^  ^, 

HARTFORD    CONVENTION 


^v. 


x^' 


REVIEW    OF    THE    POtlCY 


UNITED  STATES  GOVERNMENT, 


WHICH  LED   TO  THK 


IXTAR    OF    1812. 


BY      THEODORE     DWIGHT, 

SECRETARY  OF  THE   CONVENTIOIT. 


Published  by  N.  &  J.  White, 

NEW-YORK ; 

And  Russell,  Odiorne,  &  Co. 

BOSTON. 
D.  Fanshaw,  P'inter. 

1833. 


v^5l 


t 


r1 


.^& 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  thirty-three,  by  Theodore  Dwight,  in  the  Clerks  OflSce  of 
the  Southern  District  of  New- York. 


HISTORY 


OF   THE 


HARTFORD    CO^TVEXTIOJT. 


No  political  subject  that  has  ever  occupied  the  atten- 
tion, or  excited  the  feelings  of  the  great  body  of  the  peo- 
ple of  these  United  States,  has  ever  been  the  theme  of 
more  gross  misrepresentation,  or  more  constant  reproach, 
than  the  assembly  of  delegates  from  several  of  the  New- 
England  states,  which  met  at  Hartford,  in  the  state  of 
Connecticut,  in    December,  1814,   commonly  called  the 
"  Hartford  Convention."     It  has  been  reviled  by  multi- 
tudes of  persons  who  were  totally  unacquainted  with  its 
objects,  and  its  proceedings,  and  by  not  a  few  who  proba- 
bly were  ignorant  even  of  the  geographical  position  of  the 
place  where  the   convention  was  held.     And  it  was  suffi- 
cient for  those  who  were  somewhat  better  informed,  but 
equally  regardless  of  truth  and  justice,  that  it  affi)rded  an 
opportunity  to  kinrlle  the  resentments  of  party   against 
men  whose  talents  they  feared,  whose  respectability  they 
could  not  but  acknowledge,  whose  integrity  they  dare  not 
impeach,  and  the  purity  of  whose^rinciples  they  had  not 
the  courage  even  to  question.  A  great  proportion  of  those 
who,  at  the  present  time,  think  themselves  well  employed 
in  railing  at  the  Hartford  Convention,  were  school-boys  at 
the  time  of  its  session,  and,  of  course,  incapable  of  forming 
opinions  entitled  to  the  least  respect  in  regard  to  the  objects 
which  it  had  in  view,  or  of  the  manner  in  which  its  duties 


4  HISTORY    OF    THE 

were  performed.  In  the  meantime,  men  of  more  age, 
and  greater  opportunities  for  acquiring  knowledge,  have 
stood  calmly  by,  and  have  coolly  heard  the  general  false- 
hoods and  slanders  that  have  been  uttered  against  the 
convention,  giving  them  at  least  their  countenance,  if  not 
their  direct  and  positive  support. 

In  these,  and  in  various  other  ways,  the  Hartford  Con- 
vention, from  the  time  of  its  coming  together  to  the  present 
hour,  has  been  the  general  topic  of  reproach  and  calumny, 
as  well  as  of  the  most  unfounded  and  unprincipled  mis- 
representation and  falsehood. 

In  the  meantime,  very  little  has  been  done,  or  even 
attempted,  by  any  person,  to  stem  the  general  torrent  of 
reproach  by  which  that  assembly  have  been  assailed.  Con- 
scious of  their  own  integrity,  and  the  purity  of  their  mo- 
tives and  objects,  the  members,  with  a  single  exception, 
have  remained  silent  and  tranquil,  amidst  the  long  series 
of  efforts  to  provoke  them  to  engage  in  a  vindication  of 
their  characters  and  conduct.  One  able  and  influential 
member  of  the  convention,  a  number  of  years  since,  pub- 
lished a  clear  and  satisfactory  account  of  its  objects  and 
its  proceedings.  But  it  was  deemed  sufficient  for  those 
who  did  not  believe  the  accusations  which  had  been  so 
lavishly  preferred  against  that  body,  and  who,  of  course, 
had  no  intention  of  engaging  seriously  in  a  discussion  of 
the  general  subject,  to  reply,  that  the  author  of  the  vindi- 
cation was  one  of  the  accused,  and  on  trial  upon  the  charge 
of  sedition,  at  least,  if  not  meditated  treason,  Against  the 
United  States,  and  therefore  not  entitled  to  credit. 

This  mode  of  replying  to  an  unanswerable  vindication 
of  the  convention,  as  might  have  been  expected,  satisfied 
the  feelings  of  interested  and  devoted  partizans  ;  of  course, 
that  publication  had  no  tendency  to  check  the  utterance 
or  the  circulation  of  party  virulence,  or  vulgar  detraction. 
Revilings  of  the  convention  have  been  continued  in  com- 
mon conversation,  in  newspapers,  in  Fourth  of  July  ora- 


tysf 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  5 

tions,  in  festive  toasts,  and  bacchanalian  revelries  and 
songs.  And  finally,  when  driven  from  every  other  topic 
on  which  to  support  false  principles  by  unfounded  argu- 
mentation, grave  senators  and  representatives  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  have  introduced  the  threadbare  subject  of  ther^*^ 
Hartford  Convention  into  debate,  in  the  legislative  halls' 
of  the  nation,  when  engaged  in  discussing  the  weighty 
concerns  of  this  extensive  republic,  and  united  with  thosa 
of  inferior  standing  and  character,  in  villifying  the  Hart- 
ford Convention. 

Occurrences  of  this  kind,  with  others  of  a  more  serious 
and  portentous  description,  seemed  to  indicate,  in  a  clear 
and  convincing  manner,  that  the  time  had  arrived  when 
the  public  at  large  should  be  better  informed  on  the  sub- 
ject of  this  convention.  The  objects  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  which  it  had  originally  been  convened,"  and  the 
able  and  most  satisfactory  exhibition  of  their  labors  con- 
tained in  their  report,  which  was  published  by  them  to  t-he 
world  at  the  moment  of  their  adjournment,  have  long 
been  lost  sight  of,  and  forgotten.  With  this  is  connected 
the  extraordinary  cnrcum stance,  that  besides  the  members 
themselves,  no  individual,  except  a  single  executive  officer 
of  the  body,  had  any  means  of  knowing  what  passed 
during  their  session.  That  officer  was  the  only  disinter- 
ested witness  of  what  was  transacted  by  the  convention. 
He  was  present  throughout  every  sitting,  witnessed  every 
debate,  heard  every  speech,  was  acquainted  with  every 
motion  and  every  proposition,  and  carefully  noted  the 
result  of  every  vote  on  every  question.  He,  therefore,  of 
necessity  was,  ever  has  been,  and  still  is,  the  only  person, 
except  the  members,  who  had  the  opportunity  to  know, 
from  personal  observation,  every  thing  that  occurred.  His 
testimony,  therefore,  must  be  admitted  and  received,  unless 
he  can  be  discredited,  his  testimony  invalidated,  or  its  force 
entirely  destroyed. 

Previously  to  entering  upon  the  immediate  history  of 


6  HISTORY    OF    THE 

the  convention,  it  will  be  necessary  to  review  the  policy 
and  measures  of  the  national  government,  which  eventu- 
ally led  to  the  war  between  this  country  and  Great  Bri- 
tain ;  as  it  was  that  war  which  induced  the  New-England 
states  to  call  the  convention. 

After  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  by  the  Convention  of  1787,  and  before  its  adoption 
by  the  several  states,  the  country  became  divided  into  two 
political  parties — the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  that 
constitution.  The  former,  being  in  favour  of  the  establish- 
ment of  a  federal  government,  according  to  the  plan  de- 
lineated in  the  constitution,  naturally  took  the  name  of 
Federalists.  Those  who  were  opposed  to  the  constitution, 
and  the  form  of  government  which  it  contained,  as  natu- 
rally took  the  name  of  Anti-federalists.  Under  these  titles, 
when  the  constitution  had  been  adopted,  and  was  about  to 
commence  its  operations,  these  parties  took  the  field,  and 
arrayed  themselves,  both  in  congress  and  in  the  country, 
under  their  several  banners.  The  Federalists,  that  is,  the 
friends  of  the  new  constitution  and  government,  were  for 
the  first  eight  years  the  majority,  and  of  course  were  able 
to  pursue  the  policy,  and  adopt  the  measures,  which   in 
their  judgment  were  best  calculated  to  promote  the  great 
interests  of  the  Union.     At  their  head,  by  the  unanimous 
vote  of  the  nation,  was  placed  the  illustrious  Washing- 
ton, who  had  led  their  armies  to  victory  in  the  war  of 
independence,  and  who  was  now  designated  by  the  whole 
body  of  the  people  as  their  civil  leader  and  guide,  and  the 
protector  of  their  rights  and  liberties.     No  person  who  is 
not  old  enough  to  remember  the  feelings  of  1789,  can 
realize  the  deep  emotions  of  that  most  interesting  period, 
the  hopes  that  were  enkindled  by  the  reappearance  of  this 
great  man  upon  the  stage  of  active  usefulness,  and  of  the 
confidence  that  was  reposed  in  his  talents,  his  wisdom,  the 
purity  of  his  character,  and  the  disinterestedness  of  his 
patriotism.    Congress  assembled,  and  the  government  was 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  7 

organized.    Among  the  members  of  the  legislative  houses, 
were  to  be  found  those  who  had  attended  the  convention 
of  1787,  and  assisted  in  forming  the  constitution  under 
which  they  were  convened  to  deliberate  on  the  highest 
interests  of  the  Union.     Among  them  were  the  names  of 
Strong,   King,  Ellsworth,  Johnson,   Sherman,   Madison, 
Langdon,  Few,  Paterson,  Read,  Baldwin,  and  Oilman — 
all  members  of  the  convention^     These  men   could  not 
fail  of  being  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  constitution, 
in  all  its  parts  and  provisions,  the  views  which  were  enter- 
tained of  its  character  and  principles  by  the  convention, 
and  which  had  been  fully  explained  and  discussed  before 
the  state  conventions  by  which  it  had  been  approved  and 
ratified.     They  were   also  associated,  in  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives,  with  others  from  different  parts 
of  the  Union,  and   of  the  highest   reputation   for  public 
spirit  and  talents,  many  of  whom  had,  either  in  the  coun- 
cil or  in  the  field,  assisted  in  vindicating  the  rights  and 
achieving  the  independence  of  their  country.    Among  the 
latter  were  R.  Morris,  Carroll,  R.  H.  Lee,  Izard,  Schuy- 
ler, Benson,  Boudinot,  Fitzsimmons,  Sedgwick,  Sturges, 
Trumbull,  Ames,  and  Wadsworth.     On  men  of  this  de- 
scription, devolved  the   task   of  commencing  operations 
under  the  new  and  unti'ied  system  of  government,  which 
had  been  established  by  the  great  body  of  the  people  over 
this  infant  republic.     No  collection  of  statesmen  or  pa- 
triots were  ever  placed  in  a  more  sublime  or  responsible 
situation.     On  their    wisdom,   integrity,   patriotism,  and 
virtue,  under  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  depended  not  only  the 
freedom,  the  prosperity,  and  the  happiness  of  the  unnum- 
bered millions  who  might  hereafter  inhabit  this  emanci- 
pated portion  of  the  western  continent,  but  the  result  of 
the  great  experiment  which  was  about  to  be  made,  whe- 
ther there  was  virtue  enough  in  men  to  support  a  system 
of  free,  elective,  representative  government. 

The  attempt  was  made,  and  it  was  successful.    During 


8  HISTORY    OF   THE 


■-# 


the  two  successive  periods  of  General  Washington's  ad- 
ministration, the   cardinal  principles   of  the  government 
were  ascertained  and  established,  and  a  general  system 
of  national  policy  was  marked  out   and  pursued,  which 
has  regulated  and  controlled  the  important  concerns  of 
the  national  government  to  the  present  day.     At  the  first 
session  of  the  first  congress,  a  judicial  system  was  formed 
with  such  skill  and  wisdom,  that  forty  year's  experience 
approves  and  sanctions,  in  the  fullest  manner,  the  sound- 
ness of  its  principles  and  the  practical  wisdom  and  utility 
of  its  general  character  and  provisions.  A  financial  system, 
devised  by  the  extraordinary  mind,  and  matured  by  the 
intuitive  discernment  of  Hamilton,  was  adopted,  the  great 
principles  of  which  have  been  in  operation  through  all  the 
vicissitudes  of  party  which  the  country  has  experienced, 
and  are    still   in  force.     The    funding   system   was    also 
adopted   by  the   first   congress,   which    as    strongly   dis- 
played the  wisdom,  as  it  did  the  justice  of  the  government. 
The  national  Bank,  an  institution  indispensably  necessary 
to  the  government  as  well  as  to  the  country  at  large,  was 
another  important  measure  of  this  administration.     The 
organization  of  the  militia,  and  the  formation  of  a  navy, 
were  objects  of  its  constant  attention  and  solicitude.     In 
short,  it  may  be  said,  without  danger  of  its  being  seriously 
controverted  by  men  of  intelligence  and  character,  that 
the  great  principles  of  policy  which  have  led  the  nation 
onward  to  reputation,  respectability,  prosperity,  and  power, 
were  proposed  and  adopted  under  the  administration  of 
Washington,  and  were  the  fruits  of  the  combined  wisdom, 
profound  forecast,  and  disinterested  patriotism  of  himself 
and  his  associates  in  the  councils  of  the  nation.     He  was 
the  great  leader,  and  they  w^ere  members,  of  that  class 
of  politicians  who  were  called  Federalists — a  body  of  men 
who  have  been  the  objects  of  vulgar  reproach  and  popular 
calumny  from  the  time  the  government  was  formed,  down 
to  the  present  period. 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  9 

The  acknowledged  head  of  the  Anti-federal  party  was 
Thomas  Jefferson.  \At  the  time  when  the  convention 
which  formed  the  constitution  we^e  in  session,  and  until 
its  adoption  by  nine  of  the  states,  iVfr.  Jefferson  was  absent 
from  the  country  in  France,  where  he  had  resided  as  the 
ambassador  of  the  United  States  for  a  number  of  years. 
As  his  character  and  conduct  will  be  found  to  be  intimately 
connected  with  the  subject  of  this  work,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  devote  some  time  to  an  examination  of  his  political 
-career,  from  the  time  of  his  return  from  Europe,  until  the 
expiration  of  his  administration  of  the  national  government. 

This  gentleman  came  into  public  life  at  an  early  age; 
and  after  having  been  once  initiated  in  political  pursuits, 
he  devoted  to  them  a  large  portion  of  the  residue  of  his 
days.  Mis  mind  was  of  a  visionary  and  speculative  cast; — 
he  was  somewhat  enthusiastic  in  his  notions  of  government, 
ambitious  in  his  disposition,  and  fanciful  in  his  opinions  of 
the  nature  and  principles  of  government.    By  a  long  course 
of  watchful  discipline,  he  had  obtained  a  strict  command 
over  his  temper,  which  enabled  him  to  wear  a  smooth  and 
plausible  exterior  to  persons  of  all  descriptions  with  whom 
he  was  called  to  mingle  or  associate.     Having  been  chair- 
man of  the  committee  of  the  congress  of  1776,  by  whom 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  drawn  up,  that  fact 
gave  him  a  degree  of  celebrity,  which  the  mere  style  of 
composition  in  that  celebrated  document  would  not,  under 
other  circumstances,  have  secured  to  its  author.     At  the 
same  time,  he  had  the  reputation  of  being  a  scholar  as  well 
as  a  statesman;  and  more  deference  was  paid  to  him,  in 
both  respects,  than  the  true  state  of  the  case  called  for,  or 
in  strictness  would  warrant.    His  knowledge  of  men,  how- 
ever, was  profound  ;  he  understood  the  art  of  gaining  and 
retaining  popular  favour  beyond  any  other  politician  either 
of  ancient  or  modern  times.     Whilst' he  was, apparently 
familiar  with  those  who  were  about  him,  he  was  capable 
of  deep  dissimulation ;  and  though  he  had  at  his  command 

2 


10  HISTORY  OF  THE 

a  multitude  of  devoted  agents,  he  was  generally  his  own 
adviser  and  counsellor.  If,  by  any  untoward  circumstance^ 
he  found  himself  in  the  power  of  any  individual  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  endanger  his  standing  in  the  community,  he 
took  care  to  secure  that  individual  to  his  interests,  by  an 
obligation  so  strong  as  to  be  relieved  of  all  serious  appre- 
hensions of  a  future  exposure.  In  addition  to  all  his  other 
characteristics,  during  his  long  residence  in  France,  he  had 
become  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  principles  of  the  infidel 
philosophy  which  prevailed  in  that  kingdom,  and  exten- 
sively over  the  continent  of  Europe,  previously  to  and 
during  the  French  revolution.  This  fact,  in  connection 
with  the  belief  that  his  views  of  government  were  of  a 
wild  and  visionary  character,  destroyed  the  confidence  of 
a  large  portion  of  his  most  intelligent  countrymen  in  him 
as  a  politician,  as  well  as  a  moralist  and  a  Christian. 

Mr.  Jefferson  was  in  Paris  when  the  constitution  was 
published.     He  early  declared  himself  not  pleased  with 
the  system  of  government  which  it  contained.     On  the 
13th  of  November,  1787,  in  a  letter  to  John  Adams,  he 
said — "  How  do  you  like  our  new  constitution  ?    I  confess 
there  are  things  in  it  which  stagger  all  my  dispositions  to 
subscribe  to  what  such  an  assembly  has  proposed.     The 
house  of  federal  representatives  will  not  be  adequate  ta 
the  management  of  aflfairs  either  foreign  or  federal.  Their 
president  seems  a  bad  edition  of  a  Polish  king.    He  may 
be  elected  from  four  years  to  four  years,  for  life.    Reason 
and  experience  prove  to  us,  that  a  chief  magistrate,  so 
continuable,  is  an  office  for  life.     When  one  or  two  gene- 
rations shall  have  proved  that  this  is  an  office  for  life,  it 
becomes,   on   every   succession,   worthy   of  intrigue,   of 
bribery,  of  force,   and  even  of  foreign  interference.     It 
will  be  of  great  consequence  to  France  and  England,  to 
have  America  governed  by  a  Galloman  or  an  Angloman. 
Once  in  office,  and  possessing  the  military  force  of  the 
Union,  without  the  aid  or  check  of  a  council,  he  would  not 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  11 

be  easily  dethroned,  even  if  the  people  could  be  induced  to 
withdraw  their  votes  from  him.  I  wish  that,  at  the  end 
of  the  four  years,  they  had  made  him  forever  ineligible  a 
second  time.  Indeed,  I  think  all  the  good  of  this  new 
constitution  might  have  been  couched  in  three  or  four  new 
articles  to  be  added  to  the  good,  old,  and  venerable  fabric, 
which  should  have  been  preserved  even  as  a  religious 
relique." 

In  a  letter  of  the  same  date  to  Colonel  Smith,  he 
says — "  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  to  yourself  or  Mr. 
Adams  I  am  to  give  my  thanks  for  the  copy  of  the  new 
constitution.  I  beg  leave,  through  you,  to  place  them 
where  due.  It  will  yet  be  three  weeks  before  I  shall 
receive  them  from  America.  There  are  very  good  arti- 
cles in  it,  and  very  bad.  I  do  not  know  which  preponde- 
rate. What  we  have  lately  read  in  the  history  of  Holland, 
in  the  chapter  on  the  Stadtholder,  would  have  sufficed  to 
set  me  against  a  chief  eligible  for  a  long  duration,  if  I  had 
ever  been  disposed  toward  one  :  and  what  we  have  always 
read  of  the  election  of  Polish  kings,  should  have  forever 
excluded  the  idea  of  one  continuable  for  life.  Wonderful 
is  the  effect  of  impudent  and  persevering  lying.  The 
British  ministry  have  so  long  hired  their  gazetteers  to 
repeat,  and  model  into  every  form,  lies  about  our  being  in 
anarchy,  that  the  world  has  at  length  believed  them,  the 
English  nation  has  believed  them,  the  ministers  them- 
selves have  come  to  believe  them,  and  what  is  more  won- 
derful, we  have  believed  them  ourselves.  Yet  where  does 
this  anarchy  exist,  except  in  the  single  instance  of  Massa- 
chusetts ?  And  can  history  produce  an  instance  of  rebel- 
lion so  honorably  conducted  ?  I  say  nothing  of  its  motives. 
They  were  founded  in  ignorance,  not  wickedness.  God 
forhid  we  should  ever  be  twenty  years  without  such  a  rebellion. 
The  people  cannot  be  all,  and  always  well  informed.  The 
part  which  is  wrong  will  be  discontented  in  proportion  to 
the  facts  they  misconceive.     If  they  remain  in  quiet  under 


12  HISTORY    OF    THE 

smh  misconceptions,  it  is  a  lethargy,  the  forerunner  of  death 
to  public  liberty.  We  have  had  thirteen  states  independent 
for  eleven  years.  There  has  been  one  rebellion.  That 
comes  to  one  rebellion  in  a  century  and  a  half  for  each 
state.  What  country  before  ever  existed  a  century  and 
a  half  without  a  rebellion  ?  And  what  country  can  pre- 
serve its  liberties,  if  its  rulers  are  not  warned  from  time  to 
time  that  this  people  preserve  the  spirit  of  resistance^  Let 
them  take  arms.  The  remedy  is  to  set  them  ri/s^ht  as  to 
facts,  pardon,  and  pacify  them.  What  signify  a  few  lives 
lost  in  a  century  or  two?  The  tree  of  liberty  must  be  refreshed 
from  time  to  time  ivith  the  blood  of  patriots  and  tyrants.  It 
is  its  natural  manure.  " 

In  a  letter  to  William  Carmichael,  dated  December 
11th,  1787,  he  says — *'  Our  new  constitution  is  powerfully 
attacked  in  the  American  newspapers.  The  objections 
are,  that  its  effect  would  be  to  form  the  thirteen  states  into 
one  ;  that  proposing  to  melt  all  down  into  a  general  govern- 
ment, they  have  fenced  the  people  by  no  declaration  of 
rights  ;  they  have  not  renounced  the  power  of  keeping  a 
standing  army  ;  they  have  not  secured  the  liberty  of  the 
press  ;  they  have  reserved  the  power  of  abolishing  trials 
by  jury  in  civil  cases  ;  they  have  proposed  that  the  laws  of 
the  federal  legislatures  shall  be  paramount  to  the  laws  and 
constitutions  of  the  states;  they  have  abandoned  rotation 
in  office ;  and  particularly  their  president  may  be  re- 
elected from  four  years  to  four  years,  for  life,  so  as  to  ren- 
der him  a  king  for  life,  like  a  king  of  Poland;  and  they 
have  not  given  him  either  the  check  or  aid  of  a  council. 
To  these  they  add  calculations  of  expense,  <fcc.  &c.  to 
frighten  the  people.  You  will  perceive  that  those  objections 
are  serious,  and  some  of  them  not  without  foundation." 

The  subject  is  alluded  to  subsequently  in  a  variety  of 
letters  to  different  correspondents,  in  the  course  of  which 
he  confines  his  objections  principally  to  the  omission  of  a 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  13 

bill  or  declaration  of  rights,  and  the  re-eligibility  of  the 
president: 

Enough  has  been  quoted  to  show  that  Mr.  Jefferson 
was  not  friendly  to  the  constitution  ;  and  some  of  his  senti- 
ments were  of  a  nature  to  shake  the  confidence  of  its  friends 
in  the  soundness  of  his  general  political  principles.  Of  this 
description  were  his  remarks  on  the  Massachusetts  insur- 
rection. So  far  from  considering  rebellion  against  govern- 
ment an  evil,  he  viewed  it  as  a  benefit — as  a  necessary 
ingredient  in  the  republican  character,  and  highly  useful 
in  its  tendency  to  warn  rulers,  from  time  to  time,  that  the 
people  possessed  the  spirit  of  resistance.  And  particularly 
would  the  public  feelings  be  shocked  at  the  cold-blooded 
indifference  with  which  he  inquires,  "What  signify  a  few 
lives  lost  in  a  century  or  two  f"  and  the  additional  remark, 
that  "  The  tree  of  liberty  must  he  refreshed  from  time  to 
time  with  the  hlood  of  patriots  and  tyrants,  it  is  its  natural 
manure.''''  This  language  would  better  become  a  Turkish 
Sultan,  or  the  chief  of  a  Tartar  horde,  than  a  distinguished 
republican,  who  had  been  born  and  educated  in  a  Christian 
country,  and  enjoyed  all  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from 
civilization,  literature,  and  science. 

In  September,  1789,  Mr.  Jefferson  left  Paris,  on  his  re- 
turn to  the  United  States.  On  the  15th  of  December,  of 
that  year,  he  wrote  the  following  letter  to  General  Wash- 
ington : 

"  Chesterfield,  Decemler  15,  1789. 
"  To  THE  President. 

"  Sir, — I  have  received  at  this  place  the  honor  of  your 
letters  of  October  the  13th,  and  November  the  30th,  and 
am  truly  flattered  by  your  nomination  of  me  to  the  very 
dignified  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  for  which  permit  me 
here  to  return  you  my  humble  thanks.  Could  any  circum- 
stance seduce  me  to  overlook  the  disproportion  between  its 
duties  and  my  talents,  it  would  be  the  encouragement  of 


14  HISTORY  OF  THE 

your  choice.  But  when  I  contemplate  the  extent  of  that 
office,  embracing  as  it  does  the  principal  mass  of  domestic 
administration,  together  with  the  foreign,  I  cannot  be  in- 
sensible of  my  inequality  to  it ;  and  I  should  enter  on  it 
with  gloomy  forebodings  from  the  criticisms  and  censures 
of  a  public,  just,  indeed,  in  their  intentions,  but  sometimes 
misinformed  and  misled,  and  always  too  respectable  to  be 
neglected.  I  cannot  but  foresee  the  possibility  that  this 
may  end  disagreeably  for  me,  who  having  no  motive  to 
public  service  but  the  public  satisfaction,  would  certainly 
retire  the  moment  that  satisfaction  should  appear  to  lan- 
guish. On  the  other  hand,  I  feel  a  degree  of  familiarity 
with  the  duties  of  my  present  office,  as  far  at  least  as  I 
am  capable  of  understanding  its  *  duties.  The  ground  I 
have  already  passed  over,  enables  me  to  see  my  way  into 
that  which  is  before  me.  The  change  of  government  too, 
taking  place  in  the  country  where  it  is  exercised,  seems  to 
open  a  possibility  of  procuring  from  the  new  rulers  some 
new  advantages  in  commerce,  which  may  be  agreeable  to 
our  countrymen.  So  that,  as  far  as  my  fears,  my  hopes, 
or  my  inclinations  might  enter  into  this  question,  I  confess 
they  would  not  lead  me  to  prefer  a  change. 

"  But  it  is  not  for  an  individual  to  choose  his  post.  You 
are  to  marshal  us  as  may  best  be  for  the  public  good  ;  and 
it  is  only  in  the  case  of  its  being  indifferent  to  you,  that  I 
would  avail  myself  of  the  option  you  have  so  kindly  offered 
in  your  letter.  If  you  think  it  better  to  transfer  me  to 
another  post,  my  inclination  must  be  no  obstacle  ;  nor  shall 
it  be,  if  there  is  any  desire  to  suppress  the  office  I  now 
hold,  or  to  reduce  its  grade.  In  either  of  these  cases,  be 
so  good  as  to  signify  to  me  by  another  line  your  ultimate 
wish,  and  I  shall  conform  to  it  cordially.  If  it  should  be 
to  remain  at  New- York,  my  chief  comfort  will  be  to  work 
under  your  eye,  my  only  shelter  the  authority  of  your 
name,  and  the  wisdom  of  measures  to  be  dictated  by  you 
and  implicitly  executed  by  me.     Whatever  you  may  be 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  IS 

pleased  to  decide,  I  do  not  see  that  the  matters  which  have 
called  me  hither  will  permit  me  to  shorten  the  stay  I  ori- 
ginally asked ;  that  is  to  say,  to  set  out  on  my  journey 
northward  till  the  month  of  March.  As  early  as  possible 
in  that  month,  I  shall  have  the  honor  of  paying  my  re- 
spects to  you  in  New- York.  In  the  mean  time,  I  have 
that  of  tendering  to  you  the  homage  of  those  sentiments 
of  respectful  attachment  with  which  I  am.  Sir, 

"  Your  most  obedient,  and  most  humble  servant, 

"  Th.  Jefferson." 

This  letter  will  show  with  what  feelings  of  esteem  and 
respect  for  General  Washington  Mr.  Jefferson  professedly 
accepted  the  appointment  of  Secretary  of  State.  It  may 
hereafter  appear  with  what  degree  of  sincerity  these  pro- 
fessions were  made  ;  and  it  is  important  to  the  object  of 
this  work,  that  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  by  the  reader, 
because  one  end  which  the  writer  has  in  view  in  preparing 
it  is,  to  enable  the  community  to  form  a  more  just  estimate 
of  his  principles  and  character. 

By  adverting  to  that  part  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  writings, 
published  since  his  death,  which  bears  the  singular  and 
awkward  title  of  ^^  Ana,^^  it  appears  by  his  own  declara- 
tions, that  immediately  upon  entering  upon  the  duties  of 
his  office,  he  became  an  opposer  of  some  of  the  principal 
measures  of  the  government.     He  says — 

**  I  returned  from  that  mission  (to  France)  in  the  first 
year  of  the  new  government,  having  landed  in  Virginia  in 
December,  1789,  and  proceeded  to  New- York  in  March, 
1790,  to  enter  on  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State.  Here, 
certainly,  I  found  a  state  of  things  which,  of  all  I  had  ever 
contemplated,  I  the  least  expected.  I  had  left  France  in 
the  first  year  of  her  revolution,  in  the  fervor  of  natural 
rights,  and  zeal  for  reformation.  My  conscientious  devo- 
tion to  those  rights  could  not  be  heightened,  but  it  had 
been  aroused  and  excited  by  daily  exercise.     The  presi- 


16  HISTORY  OF  THE 

dent  received  me  cordially,  and  my  colleagues,  and  the  cir- 
cle of  principal  citizens,  apparently  with  welcome.  The 
courtesies  of  dinner  parties  given  me,  as  a  stranger  newly 
arrived  among  them,  placed  me  at  once  in  their  familiar 
society.  But  I  cannot  describe  the  wonder  and  mortifica- 
tion with  which  the  table  conversations  filled  me.  Poli- 
tics were  the  chief  topic,  and  a  preference  of  a  kingly  over  a 
republican  government^  was  evidently  the  favorite  sentiment. 
An  apostate  I  could  not  be,  nor  yet  a  hypocrite ;  and  I 
found  myself,  for  the  most  part,  the  only  advocate  on  the 
republican  side  of  the  question,  unless  among  the  guests 
there  chanced  to  be  some  members  of  that  party  from  the 
legislative  houses^*,  Hamilton's  financial  system  had  then 
passed.  It  had  two  objects  :  1.  As  a  puzzle,  to  exclude 
popular  understanding  and  inquiry;  2.  As  a  machine  for 
the  corruption  of  the  legislature ;  for  he  avowed  the  opinion, 
that  man  could  be  governed  by  one  of  two  motives  only, 
force,  or  interest ;  force,  he  observed,  in  this  country,  was 
out  of  the  question ;  and  the  interests,  therefore,  of  the 
members,  must  be  laid  hold  of  to  keep  the  legislature  in 
unison  with  the  executive.  And  with  grief  and  shame  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  his  machine  was  not  without 
efl?ect ;  that  even  in  this,  the  birth  of  our  government,  some 
members  were  found  sordid  enough  to  bend  their  duty  to 
their  interests,  and  to  look  after  personal,  rather  than 
public  good." 
^nother  measure  of  great  importance,  which  Mr.  Jeflfer- 
y  son  sti;pngly  disapproved,  was  the  assumption  of  the  state 
debts.  ^  Nothing  could  be  more  just  or  more  reasonable 
than  this  act  of  the  o-eneral  government.  The  exertions  of 
diiferent  states  had  necessarily  been  unequal,  and  in  the 
same  proportion  their  expenses  had  been  increased.  But 
those  expenses  had  all  been  incurred  in  the  common  cause  ; 
and  that  cause  having  been  successful,  nothing  could  be 
more  jast  than  that  the  debts  thus  incurred  should  be  borne 
by  the  nation.     Mr.  Jefferson,  however,  stigmatizes  the 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  17 

measure  as  corrupt  A  "  The  more  debt,"  he  says,  "  Ha- 
milton could  rake  up,  the  more  plunder  for  his  mercena-  '- — 
ries.'*  )  And  he  closes  a  long  series  of  opprobrious  remarks 
upon  the  subject,  and  upon  the  manner  in  which,  according 
to  his  opinion,  it  was  carried,  by  saying — "  This  added  to 
the  number  of  votaries  to  the  Treasury,  and  made  its  chief 
the  master  of  every  vote  in  the  legislature,  which  might 
give  to  the  government  the  direction  suited  to  his  politi- 


The  bank  was  another  measure  which  did  not  meet  with 
Mr.  Jefferson's  support. 

After  remarking  on  these  various  subjects,  he  says, 
*'  Nor  was  this  an  opposition  to  General  Washington.  He 
was  true  to  the  republican  charge  confided  to  him,  and  has 
solemnly  and  repeatedly  protested  to  me,  in  our  conversa- 
tions, that  he  would  lose  the  last  drop  of  his  blood  in  sup- 
port of  it ;  and  he  did  this  the  oftener,  and  with  the  more 
earnestness,  because  he  knew  my  suspicions  of  Hamilton's 
designs  against  it,  and  wished  to  quiet  them.  For  he  was 
not  aware  of  the  drift,  or  of  the  effect  of  Hamilton's 
schemes.  Unversed  in  financial  projects,  and  calculations, 
and  budgets,  his  approbation  of  them  was  bottomed  on 
his  confidence  in  the  man. 

"  But  Hamilton  wa»  not  only  a  monarchist,  but  for  a 
monarchy  bottomed  on  corruption."  And  he  then  gives 
an  account  of  a  conversation  which  he  says  took  place  at 
a  meeting  of  the  Vice-president  and  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments, in  the  course  of  which  the  British  constitution  was 
alluded  to  ;  and  in  regard  to  which  he  says — "  Mr. 
Adams  observed,  'Purge  that  constitution  of  its  corrup- 
tion, and  give  to  its  popular  branch  equality  of  representa- 
tion, and  it  would  be  the  most  perfect  constitution  ever  de- 
vised by  the  wit  of  man.'  Hamilton  paused,  and  observed, 
*  Purge  it  of  its  corruption,  and  give  to  its  popular  branch 
equality  of  representation,  and  it  would  become  an  imprac- 
ticable government;  as  it  stands  at  present,  with  all  iti 

3 


L 


18  HISTORY  OF  THE 

supposed  defects,  it  is  the  most  perfect  government  which 
ever  existed." 

The  Funding  System  was  one  of  the  great  measures 
that  distinguished  General  Washington's  administration. 
It  was  devised  by  Hamilton,  and  has  ever  been  considered 
as  reflecting  the  highest  credit  upon  his  talents  and  pa- 
triotism. No  man  labored  with  more  zeal  or  ability  to 
procure  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  than  this  great 
statesman.  The  Federalist,  of  which  he  was  one  of  the 
principal  writers,  and  contributed  the  largest  share,  has 
long  been  considered  as  a  standard  work  on  the  constitu- 
tion, and  is  now  resorted  to  as  an  authority  of  the  highest 
respectability  and  character,  respecting  the  true  principles 
and  construction  of  that  instrument.  The  system  of  reve- 
nue adopted  under  General  Washington,  was  also  the  work 
of  this  distinguished  financier ;  and  so  nearly  perfect  was 
it  found  to  be  in  practice,  amidst  all  the  changes  and 
violence  of  party,  and  under  the  administration  of  those 
individuals  who  were  originally  opposed  to  its  adoption, 
that  they  severally  found  it  necessary,  when  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  government,  to  pursue  the  system  which  he  had 
devised.  Even  Mr.  Jefferson  himself,  during  the  eight  years 
that  he  held  the  office  of  chief  magistrate,  never  ventured  to 
adopt  a  new  system  of  finance,  but  adhered,  in  all  its  essen-^ 
tial  particulars,  to  that  devised  by  Hamihon.  And  yet, 
from  the  moment  he  came  into  the  executive  department 
of  the  government,  and  was  associated  with  Hamilton 
and  others  in  establishing  the  principles  of  the  constitution, 
it  appears,  by  his  own  evidence,  that  he  was  endeavoring 
to  destroy  the  reputation  and  influence  of  that  great  states- 
man, by  secret  slanders,  and  insidious  suggestions  against 
his  political  integrity  and  orthodoxy.  The  article  from 
which  the  foregoing  citations  are  taken,  was  not  written  at 
the  moment — it  was  not  the  record  of  events  as  they  occur- 
red from  day  to  day :  it  bears  date  in  1818 — nearly  thirty 
years  after  most  of  those  events  took  place,  and  fourteen 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  19 

years  after  General  Hamilton  had  been  consigned  to  the 
tomb.  A  more  extraordinary  instance  of  vindictive,  per- 
sonal, or  political  hostility,  probably  cannot  be  mentioned. 
This  work,  however,  has  not  been  undertaken  with  the 
view  of  vindicating  the  character  of  General  Hamilton 
from  the  aspersions  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  That  duty  devolves 
on  others ;  and  it  is  a  gratification  to  know  that  the  task  is 
in  a  fair  way  to  be  performed  by  those,  who,  it  is  presumed, 
w^ill  see  that  it  is  done  faithfully.  Mr.  Jefferson's  *«  Writ- 
ings" have  been  referred  to  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
his  original  dislike  of  the  constitution,  his  opposition  to  the 
most  important  measures  of  the  government  at  its  first 
organization,  and  his  inveterate  hostility  to  the  most  able, 
upright  and  disinterested  expounders  of  the  constitution. 
Among  these  was  Alexander  Hamilton.  The  mode  of  at- 
tack upon  this  distinguished  individual,  and  equally  distin- 
guished public  benefactor,  was  no  less  insidious  than  it 
was  unjust  and  calumnious.  It  was  to  represent  him  not 
only  as  unfriendly  to  the  constitution,  in  the  formation  and 
adoption  of  which  he  was  one  of  the  intelligent,  active,  and 
influential  agents,  but  as  a  monarchist — an  enemy  to  re- 
publicanism itself.  In  the  quotations  which  have  already 
been  made  from  his  "  Ana,''''  he  says  General  Hamilton 
"  was  not  only  a  monarchist,  but  for  a  monarchy  bottomed 
on  corruption."  And  he  professes  to  repeat  declarations 
of  a  similar  kind,  made  openly  by  General  Hamilton  at  a 
dinner  party,  when  Mr.  Jefferson  himself  was  present. 
Assertions  of  this  kind,  unsupported  by  any  other  evidence 
than  his  own  declarations,  are  not  worthy  of  credit.  Gene- 
ral Hamilton  was  too  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Jefferson's 
feeling  toward  him,  and  of  his  disposition  to  undermine 
and  destroy  him,  thus  voluntarily  and  unnecessarily  to 
place  himself  in  his  power.  In  some  instances,  in  the 
course  of  his  "  Ana,^^  other  names  are  introduced  as  cor- 
roborating witnesses  in  support  of  some  of  the  charges 
against  General  Hamilton.    It  is  diflicult  to  disprove  post- 


v_ 


20  HISTORY  OF  THE 

humous  testimony  by  positive  evidence,  especially  when  the 
parties,  as  well  as  the  witnesses,  are  in  their  graves ;  but 
several  of  the  individuals,  nahfied  by  Mr.  Jefferson  as  the 
persons  from  whom  he  derived  a  knowledge  of  the  conver- 
sations and  declarations  of  General  Hamilton,  will  add  no 
strength  to  the  evidence;  they  are  not  worthy  of  belief 
in  a  case  of  this  kind. 

That  General  Hamilton  was  an  enemy  to  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  government,  in  the  formation  of  which  he  had 
assisted  so  zealously  and  so  faithfully,  in  procuring  the 
adoption  of  which  he  had  laboured  with  as  much  talent, 
and  with  as  much  effect,  as  any  other  man  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  developing  and  establishing  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  which,  his  exertions  were  inferior  to  those  of  no 
other  individual,  will  not  at  this  late  period  be  credited. 

That  Mr.  Jefferson  wished,  by  secret  measures,  and  a 
train  of  artful  and  insidious  means,  to  destroy  his  great 
rival,  no  person  acquainted  with  his  history,  conduct,  and 
character,  can  doubt.  It  comported  with  his  policy  to 
lay  the  charge  of  monarchical  feelings  and  sentiments 
against  him,  because  his  object  was  to  avail  himself  of 
the  prejudices  of  the  people  against  Great  Britain,  which 
the  war  of  independence  had  excited,  and  which  time  had 
not  allayed,  to  raise  himself  to  popularity  and  power. 
When  the  French  revolution  had  advanced  far  enough  to 
enlist  the  feelings  of  a  portion  of  our  countrymen  in  their 
favour,  on  the  ground  that  the  nation  was  endeavouring  to 
throw  off  a  despotism,  and  establish  a  republican  govern- 
ment, another  portion  of  them  considered  the  principles 
they  avowed,  and  the  course  they  pursued^  as  dangerous 
to  the  very  existence  of  civilized  society.  Mr.  Jefferson 
declares  in  his  "^wa,"  as  above  quoted,  that  he  ''  had 
left  France  in  the  first  year  of  her  revolution,  in  the  fervor 
of  natural  rights  and  zeal  for  reformation."  His  devotion 
to  those  rights,  he  says,  "  could  not  be  heightened,  but  it 
had  been  aroused  and  excited  by  daily  exercise.*'  Accord- 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  21 

ingly  he  became,  at  a  very  early  period,  the  leader  of  the 
party  in  this  country,  who,  in  the  utmost  warmth  of  feel-  * 
ing,  espoused  the  cause  of  revolutionary  France.     To 
render  himself  the  more  conspicuous,  he  found  it  expe- 
dient to  stigmatize  those  who  entertained  different  senti- 
ments from  himself,  as  the  enemies  of  republicanism,  and 
of  course,  as  the  friends  of  monarchy.    The  meaning  of 
this  charge  was,  that  they  were  the  friends  of  Great  Bri- 
tain and  the  British  government.     Hence  proceeded  the 
charges  of  a  monarchical  propensity  in  Mr.  Adams  and 
General  Hamilton,  specimens  of  which  have  been  already 
adduced.    But  it  was  soon  found  necessary  to  go  greater 
lengths  than  this.  To  pave  the  way  for  a  gradual  attempt 
to  undermine  the  popularity  of  General  Washington,  and 
to  shake  the  public  confidence  in  his  patriotism  and  in- 
tegrity, a   similar  eflfort  was   made  to  involve  him   in  a 
similar  accusation.    The  plan  adopted  to  accomplish  this 
object,  was  to  represent  him   as  having   a  bias  toward 
Great  Britain,  and  against  France.    If  Mr.  Jefferson,  who 
had    espoused  the    side   of  revolutionary  France,   could 
succeed   in    making  the    country   believe    that   General 
Washington  had  taken  sides  with  Great  Britain  against 
France,  in  the  great  controversy  that  was  then  convulsing 
Europe,  it  would  follow  almost  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
that  he  would  be  considered  as  the  enemy  of  freedom,  and 
the  friend  of  monarchical    government.     In   his   corres- 
pondence, published  since  his  death,  there  is  the  following 
letter  : 

"  To  P.  Mazzet. 

"  Monticello,  April  24,  1796. 

"  My  dear  Friend — The  aspect  of  our  politics  has 
wonderfully  changed  since  you  left  us.  In  place  of  that 
noble  love  of  liberty  and  republican  government  which 
carried  us  triumphantly  through  the  war,  an  Anglican 
monarchical  and  aristocratical  party  has  sprung  up,  whose 


22  HISTORY   or  THE 

avowed  object  is  to  draw  over  us  the  substance,  as  they 

have  already  done  the  forms,  of  the  British  government. 

The  main  body  of  our  citizens,  however,  remain  true  to 

their  republican  principles :  the  whole  landed  interest  is 

republican,  and  so  is  a  great  mass  of  talents.    Against  us 

are  the  executive,  the  judiciary,  two  out  of  three  branches 

of  the  legislature,  all  the  officers  of  the  government,  all 

who  want  to  be  officers,  all  timid  men  who  prefer  the 

calm  of  despotism  to  the  boisterous  sea  of  liberty,  British 

merchants,  and  Americans  trading  on   British  capitals, 

speculators  and  holders  in  the  banks  and  public  funds,  a 

contrivance  invented  for  the  purposes  of  corruption,  and 

for  assimilating  us  in  all  things  to  the  rotten   as  well  as 

the  sound  parts  of  the  British  model.    It  would  give  you 

a  fever  were  I  to  name  to  you  the  apostates  who  have 

gone  over  to  these  heresies,  men  who  were  Samsons  in 

the  field   and  Solomons  in  the  council,  but  who  have  had 

their   heads   shorn  by  the  harlot  England.    In  short,  we 

are  likely  to  preserve  the  liberty  we  have  obtained  only 

by  unremitting  labors  and  perils.    But  we  shall  preserve 

it ;  and  our  mass  of  weight  and  wealth  on  the  good  side 

is  so  great,  as  to  leave  no  danger  that  force  will  ever  be 

attempted  against  us.    We  have  only  to  awake,  and  snap 

the  Lilliputian  cords  with  which  they  have  been  entangling 

us  during  the  first  sleep  which  succeeded  our  labors." 

When  this  letter  first  appeared  in  the  United  States,  it 
was  in  the  following  form  : 

"  Our  political  situation  is  prodigiously  changed  since 
you  left  us.  Instead  of  that  noble  love  of  liberty,  and  that 
republican  government  which  carried  us  through  the  dan- 
gers of  the  war.  an  anglo-monarchic-aristocratic  party 
has  arisen.  Their  avowed  object  is,  to  impose  on  us  the 
substance,  as  they  have  already  given  us  the  form,  of  the 
British  government.  Nevertheless,  the  principal  body  of 
our  citizens  remain  faithful  to  republican  principles,  as 
also  the  men  of  talents.  We  have  against  us  (republicans) 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  23 

the  executive  power,  the  judiciary,  (two  of  the  three 
branches  of  our  government,)  all  the  officers  of  govern- 
ment, all  who  are  seeking  for  offices,  all  timid  men,  who 
prefer  the  calm  of  despotism  to  the  tempestuous  sea  of 
liberty,  the  British  merchants,  and  the  Americans  who 
trade  on  British  capitals,  the  speculators,  persons  inte- 
rested in  the  bank,  and  public  funds.  [Establishments 
invented  with  views  of  corruption,  and  to  assimilate  us  to 
the  British  model  in  its  worst  parts.]  I  should  give  you  a 
fever,  if  I  should  name  the  apostates  who  have  embraced 
these  heresies,  men  who  were  Solomons  in  council,  and 
Samsons  in  combat,  but  whose  hair  has  been  cut  off  by 
the  whore  England. 

"  They  would  wrest  from  us  that  liberty  which  we  have 
obtained  by  so  much  labor  and  peril ;  but  we  shall  pre- 
serve it.  Our  mass  of  weight  and  riches  are  so  powerful, 
that  we  have  nothing  to  fear  from  any  attempt  against  us 
by  force.  It  is  sufficient  that  we  guard  ourselves,  and  that 
we  break  the  Lilliputian  ties  by  which  they  have  bound 
us,  in  the  first  slumbers  which  have  succeeded  our  labors. 
It  suffices  that  we  arrest  the  progress  of  that  system  of 
ingratitude  and  injustice  toward  France,  from  which  they 
would  ^Henate  us,  to  bring  us  under  British  influence." 

It  may  easily  be  imagined,  that  the  appearance  of  this 
extraordinary  article  in  the  United  States,  was  calculated 
to  disturb  the  feelings  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  Such  an  attack 
as  it  contained  on  the  character  of  General  Washington, 
as  well  as  upon  his  coadjutors,  could  not  pass  unnoticed; 
and  it  obviously  placed  the  writer  of  it  in  a  perplexing 
and  inextricable  dilemma.  Accordingly,  in  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  August  3d,  1797,  he  thus 
unbosomed  himself: 

"  The  variety  of  other  topics  the  day  I  was  with  you, 
kept  out  of  sight  the  letter  to  Mazzei  imputed  to  me  in 
the  papers,  the  general  substance  of  which  is  mine,  though 
the  diction  has  been  considerably  altered  and  varied  in 


24  HISTORY   OF   THE 

the  course  of  its  translations  from  French  into  ItaHan, 
from  Italian  into  French,  and  from  French  into  English. 
I  first  met  with  it  at  Bladensburg,  and  for  a  moment  con- 
ceived I  must  take  the  field  of  the  public  papers.  I  could 
not  disavow  it  wholly,  because  the  greatest  part  was  mine 
in  substance,  though  not  in  form.  I  could  not  avow  it  as 
it  stood,  because  the  form  was  not  mine,  and,  in  one  place, 
the  substance  was  very  materially  falsified.  This,  then, 
would  render  explanations  necessary ;  nay,  it  would  ren- 
der proofs  of  the  whole  necessary,  and  draw  me  at  length 
into  a  publication  of  all  (even  the  secret)  transactions  of 
the  administration,  while  I  was  of  it ;  and  embroil  me 
personally  with  every  member  of  the  executive  and  the 
judiciary,  and  with  others  still.  I  soon  decided  in  my  own 
mind  to  be  entirely  silent.  I  consulted  with  several  friends 
at  Philadelphia,  who,  every  one  of  them,  were  clearly 
against  my  avowing  or  disavowing,  and  some  of  them 
conjured  me  most  earnestly  to  let  nothing  provoke  me  to 
it.  I  corrected,  in  conversation  with  them,  a  substantial 
misrepresentation  in  the  copy  published.  The  original 
has  a  sentiment  like  this,  (for  I  have  it  not  before  me,) 
"  They  are  endeavoring  to  submit  us  to  the  substance,  as 
they  already  have  to  the  forms  of  the  British  government ; 
meaning  by  forms,  the  birthdays,  levees,  processions  to 
parliament,  inauguration  pomposities,  &c.  But  the  copy 
published  says,  '  as  they  have  already  submitted  us  to  the 
form  of  the  British,'  &c. ;  making  me  express  hostility  to 
the  form  of  our  government,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  consti- 
tution itself;  for  this  is  really  the  difference  of  the  word 
form,  used  in  singular  or  plural,  in  that  phrase,  in  the 
English  language.  Now  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to 
explain  this  publicly,  without  bringing  on  a  personal  dif- 
ference between  General  Washington  and  myself,  which 
nothing  before  the  publication  of  this  letter  has  ever  done. 
It  would  embroil  me  also  with  all  those  with  whom  his 
character  is  still  popular,  that  is  to  say,  with  nine-tenths 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  25 

t>f  the  United  States ;  and  what  good  would  be  obtained 
by  avowing  the  letter  with  the  necessary  explanations  ? 
Very  little,  indeed,  in  my  opinion,  to  counterbalance  a 
good  deal  of  harm.  From  my  silence  in  this  instance,  it  c 
cannot  be  inferred  that  I  am  afraid  to  own  the  general  sen- 
timents of  the  letter.  If  I  am  subject  to  either  imputa- 
tion, it  is  to  avowing  such  sentiments  too  frankly  both  in 
private  and  public,  often  when  there  is  no  necessity  for  it, 
merely  because  /  disdain  every  ihing  like  duplicity.  Still, 
however,  I  am  open  to  conviction.  Think  for  me  on  the 
occasion,  and  advise  me  what  to  do,  and  confer  with  Colo- 
nel Monroe  on  the  subject." 

This  letter,  take  which  version  of  it  we  may,  discloses 
the  secret  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  policy.  It  was  to  represent 
the  federal  party  as  monarchists,  and  aristocrats,  enemies 
to  republicanism,  and  therefore  devoted  to  the  interests 
of  Great  Britain,  and  hostile  to  those  of  France.  No  man 
ever  understood  more  perfectly  the  effect  of  names  upon 
the  minds  of  partizans,  than  this  great  champion  of  modern 
republicanism  ;  and  hence  he  informs  his  friend  Mazzei, 
that  the  Federalists  were  a  body  of  Anglo-Monarchic-Aris- 
iocrals,  and  himself  and  his  friends  were  Repuhlicans. 

Nobody  will  be  surprised  to  find,  that  the  publication  of 
his  letter  in  the  newspapers  of  the  United  States,  gave 
Mr.  Jefferson  uneasiness.  The  man  who  had  the  hardi- 
hood to  accuse  General  Washington  with  being  an  aristo- 
crat and  a  monarchist,  and  particularly,  with  being  devoted 
to  British  influence  and  interests,  must  have  possessed  a 
degree  of  mental  courage  not  often  found  in  the  human 
constitution.  And  it  is  perfectly  apparent  that  this  was 
the  circumstance  which  so  greatly  embarrassed  him,  when 
determining  the  important  question  whether  it  would  be 
most  for  his  own  advantage  to  come  before  the  public,  and 
endeavour  to  explain  away  the  obvious  meaning  of  his 
letter,  or  to  observe  a  strict,  and  more  prudent  silence, 
and  leave  the  world  to  form  their  own  conclusions.     He 

4 


26  HISTORY  OF  THE 

finally  resolved  on  the  latter,  making  his  explanations  only 
to  his  confidential  friends,  and  leaving  them  in  such  a  form, 
that  they  might  pass,  with  his  other  posthumous  works, 
to  future  generations. 

A   little   attention   to  the   subject   will   show,   that   he 
adopted  the  most  prudent  course.  Mr.  Jefferson's  attempt 
to  give  a  dififerent  meaning  to  his  own  language,  is  entirely 
unsatisfactory.     In  the  letter,   as  first  published    in   the 
newspapers,  it  is  said — "  Our  political  situation  is  prodi- 
giously changed  since  you  left  us."     In  the  version  of  it 
in  his  posthumous  works,  it  is — "  lihe  aspect  o^  our  politics 
has  wonderfully  changed  since  you  left  us."     Not  having 
the  original,  either  in  Italian  or  French,  it  is  not  practi- 
cable at  this  time  to  say  which  is  most  correct.   But  there 
is   a  material  difference  between  the  expressions  "  Our 
political  condition,"  and  "  the  aspect  of  our  politics."    The 
first  has  an  immediate  and  obvious  reference  to  the  situa- 
tion of  the  country  at  large,  as  connected  with  the  general 
government,  and  the  character  of  that  government ;  the 
other  relates  merely  to  the  measures  of  the  government. 
The  first,  if  in  any  degree  to  be  deplored,  must  be  con- 
sidered  as   permanent ;    the   last,   as  referring  to  mere 
legislative   acts,   which  in  their  nature  were  transitory. 
The  next  sentence  shows,  conclusively,  that  it  was  the 
character  of  the  government,  and  not  merely  its  measures, 
that   were  alluded  to.     "  Instead   of  that   noble  love   of 
liberty,  and  that  republican  government^  which  carried  us 
through  the  dangers   of  the  war,    an  Anglo-Monarchic- 
Aristocratic  party  has  arisen."     The  "republican  govern- 
ment which  carried  us  through  the  dangers  of  the  war," 
was  the  *'  old  confederation,"  as  it  is  usually  called.    The 
change  that  had  taken  place  was  in  the  system  of  govern- 
ment— in  the  substitution  of  something  else  in  the  place  of 
the  confederation.     By  turning  back  to  Mr.  Jefferson's 
letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  dated  November  13th,  1787,  we  shall 
find  him  using  the  following  language — "  How  do  you  like 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  27 

our  new  constitution  ?  I  confess  there  are  things  in  it 
which  stagger  all  my  dispositions  to  subscribe  to  what  such 
an  assembly  has  proposed."  He  then  enunier-ates  several 
objections,  and  says — "  I  think  all  the  good  of  this  new 
constitution  might  have  been  couched  in  three  or  four  new 
articles  to  he  added  to  the  good,  old,  and  venerable  fabric, 
which  should  have  been  preserved  even  as  a  religious 
relique."  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  his  affections  were 
placed  on  the  "good,  old"  confederation;  and  when  he 
complains  of  the  prodigious  alteration  that  had  taken  place 
in  our  political  condition  since  Mr.  Mazzei  had  left  us,  he 
must  have  had  reference  to  the  new  constitution. 

This  is  further  manifest  from  the  language  which  imme- 
diately follows.  He  declares  in  the  letter  as  first  published, 
that  the  "  avowed  object  of  the  party  to  which  he  has  alluded, 
is,  to  impose  on  us  the  substance,  as  they  have  already  given 
us  the  form  of  the  British  government."  In  the  letter  as 
published  in  his  works,  he  blends  the  two  sentences  toge- 
ther, and  after  mentioning  the  Anglo  party,  varies  the  pas- 
sage above  quoted,  by  saying — "whose  avowed  object  is 
to  draw  over  us  the  substance,  as  they  have  already  done  the 
forms,  of  the  British  government."  The  British  govern- 
ment consists  of  three  estates — a  hereditary  monarchy,  a 
hereditary  House  of  Peers,  and  an  elective  House  of  Com- 
mons— or  in  other  words,  of  King,  Lords,  and  Commons. 
Our  government  consists  of  a  President,  Senate,  and  House 
of  Representatives — all  elective,  though  for  different  pe- 
riods. One  objection  urged,  on  various  occasions,  against 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  was  its  resemblance,  in 
the  particulars  just  mentioned,  to  the  British  government. 
Among  others,  Mr.  Jefferson  was  pointedly  opposed  to  the 
re-eligibility  of  the  executive.  He  compared  it  to  the  case 
of  the  king  of  Poland,  and  thought  there  ought  to  have 
been  a  provision  prohibiting  the  re-election  of  any  indivi- 
dual to  that  office.  The  people  of  the  states,  however, 
concluded  that  their  liberties  would  not  be  exposed  to  any 


26  HISTORY    OF    THE 

imminent  hazard,  under  a  system  where  all  the  officers, 
executive  and  legislative,  were  elective,  and  they  took  the 
constitution  as  it  was.  And  great  as  Mr.  Jefferson's  fears 
of  danger  to  freedom  were  from  this  quarter,  he  eventually 
overcame  them  so  far  as  to  suffer  himself  to  be  placed  in 
the  office  of  chief  magistrate  twice,  without  any  apparent 
misgivings  of  mind  or  conscience.  Now  it  is  scarcely 
possible  for  any  unbiassed  mind  to  believe,  that  he  had  not 
immediate  reference  to  this  part  of  our  constitution,  when 
he  remarked,  that  the  "  Anglo-Monarchic-4ristocratic" 
party  were  endeavouring  to  impose  upon  the  nation  "  the 
substance,  as  they  had  already  given  it  the  form,  of  the 
British  government."  These  three  cardinal  branches  of  the 
British  government,  viz.  "Kings,  Lords,  and  Commons," 
are  all  the  form  there  is  to  that  government.  All  the 
residue  of  what  is  called  by  themselves  their  constitution, 
consists  of  unwritten  and  prescriptive  usages,  sometimes 
called  laws  of  parliament,  which  never  were  reduced  to 
form,  and  certainly  never  were  adopted  in  the  form  of  a 
constitution. 

Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  attempts  to 
give  a  totally  different  meaning  to  this  part  of  his  letter. 
He  says,  "  The  original  has  a  sentiment  like  this,  (for  I  have 
it  not  before  me,)  They  are  endeavouring  to  submit  us  to 
the  substance,  as  they  already  have  to  the  formSy  of  the 
British  government ;  meaning  by  forms,  the  birth-days, 
levees,  processions  to  parliament,  inauguration  pomposi- 
ties, &c.  For  this  is  really  the  meaning  of  the  wovA  form, 
used  in  the  singular  or  plural,  in  that  phrase,  in  the  Eng- 
lish language."  We  do  not  believe  that  any  person,  well 
acquainted  with  the  English  language,  ever  made  use  of 
such  an  awkward  and  senseless  expression  as  that  above 
cited — They  are  endeavouring  to  submit  us  to  the  substance. 
As  Mr.  Jefferson  always  was  considered  a  scholar,  the 
internal  evidence  derived  from  this  singular  phraseology 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  29 

is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  it  was  adopted 
here  for  the  occasion. 

But  the  application  of  the  expression  form,  or  even 
forms,  of  the  British  government,  to  the  practise  of  observ- 
ing birth-days,  holding  levees,  of  moving  in  procession  to 
parliament,  or  the  pomposities  of  inaugurations,  is  down- 
right absurdity.  These  ceremonious  customs  are  no  part 
of  the  government,  either  in  Great  Britain,  or  in  the 
United  States.  They  may  be  childish,  they  may  be 
pompous,  they  may  be  servile  and  adulatory,  but  they  are 
not  proceedings,  either  in  form  or  substance,  of  the  govern- 
ment. Nor  has  the  word  form  or  forms  any  such  legitimate 
meaning.  This  explanation  was  doubtless  contrived  for 
future  use,  and  not  to  be  made  public ;  and  it  is  not  at  all 
surprising  that  Mr.  Jefferson  found  there  were  serious 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  public  exposure  of  his  meaning, 
if  this  was  all  the  explanation  he  had  to  give.  The  course 
he  adopted,  which  was  to  observe  a  strict  silence,  was  far 
more  discreet.  A  more  weak  and  unsatisfactory  attempt 
to  evade  a  plain  and  obvious  difficulty  has  rarely  been  made. 

The  next  sentence  in  the  letter  as  first  published  is,  "  Ne- 
vertheless, the  principal  body  of  our  citizens  remain  faith- 
ful to  republican  principles,  as  also  the  men  of  talents." 
In  the  letter  in  Mr.  Jefferson's  works,  it  stands  thus — 
•*  The  main  body  of  our  citizens,  however,  remain  true  to 
their  republican  principles  ;  the  whole  landed  interest  is  re- 
publican, and  so  is  a  great  mass  of  talents."  Now  it  may  be 
safely  said,  that  no  mistake  in  translation  can  possibly  ac- 
count for  the  diversity  that  appears  in  these  two  sentences. 
Without  noticing  the  difference  between  the  first  and  last 
members  of  the  two  sentences,  the  expression — "the  whole 
landed  interest  is  republican" — is  entirely  wanting  in  the 
letter  as  first  published.  This  must  have  been  wilfully  sup- 
pressed in  the  first  letter,  if  it  was  in  the  original — a  cir- 
cumstance that  is  not  to  be  credited,  because  no  possible 
motive  can  be  assigned  for  such  an  act.     The  inference 


30  HISTORY   OP   THE 

then  must  be,  that  it  was  introduced  into  the  copy  left  for 
posthumous  publication,  to  help  the  general  appearance  of 
mistranslation,  and  to  countenance  and  give  plausibility  to 
other  alterations  of  more  importance. 

The  letter  as  first  published,  then  proceeds — "We  have 
against  us  (republicans)  the  Executive  Power,  the  Judiciary, 
(two  of  the  three  branches  of  our  government,)  all  the  officers 
of  government,  all  who  are  seeking  for  offices,  all  timid 
men,  who  prefer  the  calm  of  despotism  to  the  tempestu- 
ous sea  of  liberty,  the  British  merchants,  and  the  Ameri- 
cans who  trade  on  British  capitals,  the  speculators,  per- 
sons interested  in  the  Bank  and  Public  Funds,  [establish- 
ments invented  with  views  of  corruption,  and  to  assimilate 
us  to  the  British  model  in  its  corrupt  parts.]  In  the  letter 
in  Mr.  Jefferson's  works,  it  stands  thus — "  Against  us  are 
the  executive,  the  judiciary,  two  out  of  three  branches  of  the 
legislature,  all  the  officers  of  government,  all  who  want  to 
be  officers,  all  timid  men  who  prefer  the  calm  of  despotism 
to  the  boisterous  sea  of  liberty,  British  merchants,  and 
Americans  trading  on  British  capitals,  speculators  and 
holders  in  the  banks  and  public  funds,  a  contrivance  in- 
vented for  the  purposes  of  corruption,  and  for  assimilating 
us  in  all  things  to  the  rotten  as  well  as  the  sound  parts  of 
the  British  model. 

It  is  impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  the  article 
published  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  Mazzei,  in  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son's works,  from  which  the  last  extract  is  taken,  is  not  a 
correct  transcript  of  the  original,  but  was  prepared  to  an- 
swer a  specific  purpose.  No  person  will  be  persuaded 
that  Mr.  Jefferson  ever  called  the  executive  and  the  judi- 
ciary "  tivo  out  of  three  branches  of  the  legislature.^^  The 
language  of  the  letter  first  published  is  correct — "  two  of 
the  three  branches  of  our  government.'^''  Again  he  says, 
**  speculators  and  holders  in  the  banks.^^  I'here  was  but 
one  national  bank,  and  reference  must  be  made  to  national 
banks  alone.     The  first  letter  has  it  correctly — the  Bank. 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  31 

The  fact  that  banks  are  mentioned  in  the  last,  is  decisive 
proof  that  the  first  is  the  most  accurate  translation. 

There  is  an  expression  here  which  is  so  strikingly  cha- 
racteristic of  the  author,  that  it  ought  not  to  pass  unno- 
ticed. Mr.  Jefferson  says,  "  We  have  against  its  republic 
cans — all  timid  men  who  prefer  the  calm  of  despotism  to 
the  tempestuous  sea  of  liberty."  In  the  second  letter  it  is 
**  the  boisterous  sea  of  liberty."  It  will  be  borne  in  mind, 
the  "  timid  men"  here  spoken  of,  were  not  inhabitants  of 
France,  or  England,  but  of  these  United  States,  then  under 
the  mild,  and  peaceable,  and  prosperous  influence  of  the 
government  which  they  had  so  recently  adopted,  and  the 
beneficial  effects  of  which  they  were  then  realizing  in  a 
most  gratifying  degree.  That  a  man  of  his  temperament 
should  call  such  a  state  of  things,  under  such  a  govern- 
ment, the  calm  of  despotism,  is  not  a  little  extraordinary. 
But  it  will  be  recollected,  that  in  a  letter  quoted  in  the 
former  part  of  this  work,  when  speaking  of  the  insurrec- 
tion in  Massachusetts,  he  said,  "God  forbid  we  should 
ever  be  twenty  years  without  such  a  rebellion."  "  And 
what  country  can  preserve  its  liberties,  if  its  rulers  are  not 
warned  from  time  to  time,  that  this  people  preserve  the 
spirit  of  resistance  ?  Let  them  take  arms." — "What  sig- 
nify a  few  lives  lost  in  a  century  or  two  ?  The  tree  of  liber- 
ty must  be  refreslied  from  time  to  time  with  the  blood  of  pa- 
triots arid  tyrants.  It  is  its  natural  manured  After  read- 
ing these  sentiments  and  expressions,  no  person  can  be 
surprised  to  find  that  Mr.  Jefferson  should  prefer  the  tu- 
mults, the  distresses,  and  the  bloodshed  of  insurrections,  to 
the  peace,  the  tranquillity,  and  the  social  happiness,  which 
are  enjoyed  under  a  mild,  beneficent,  well-regulated,  and 
well-administered  government.  No  man  of  sound  mind, 
and  virtuous  principles,  will  envy  him  his  choice. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  expression  in  this  letter  is 
the  declaration,  that  the  republicans,  that  is,  Mr.  Jefferson 
and  his  political  partizans,  were  opposed  by  the  executive 


32  HISTORY    OF    THE 

and  the  judiciary.     When  this  allegation  was  made,  and 
it  is  contained  in  both  versions  of  the  letter,  the  chief  exe- 
cutive magistrate   of    the   United    States   was   George 
WashingtOxX.    George  Washington  led  the  armies  of  the 
United  States  through  the  revolutionary  war ;  and  during 
the  whole  of  that  arduous  and  distressing  conflict,  disco- 
vered military  skill  and  talents  of  the  highest  order.  Under 
all  circumstances,  and  in  all  situations,  he  manifested  the 
most  pure  and  devoted  patriotism  ;  and  after  having  seen 
his  country  victorious,  and  its  independence  acknowledged, 
even  by  the  adversary  with  whom  he  had  so  long  and  so 
successfully  contended,  in  a  manner  that  excited  the  sur- 
prise and  the  admiration  not  only  of  his  own  country,  but 
of  the   civilized  world,   he   surrendered  the   power   with 
vv^hich  he  had  been  clothed,  and  which  he  had  so  lons"  exer- 
cised,  into  the  hands  of  those  from  whom  he  received  it,  and 
retired  to  private  life  amidst  the  applauses,  and  loaded  with 
the  gratitude  and  benedictions  of  his  fellow  citizens.  When 
it  was  found  that  the  government  which  had  carried  the 
nation  through  the  war,  was  insufficient  for  the  exigencies 
of  peace,  he  again  lent  his  whole  talents  anc^i  nfluence  to  the 
formation  and  adoption  of  a  new  system,  better  calculated 
for  the  wants,  and  better  suited  to  the  promotion  of  the  great 
interests  of  the  union.    As  soon  as  that  system  was  adopted 
by  the  nation,  he  was  called  by  the  spontaneous,  and  unani- 
mous voice  of  his  countrymen,  to  the  office  of  chief  ma- 
gistrate ;  which  call  was  renewed,  with  the  same  unanimity, 
on  a  second  occasion;  at  the  end  of  which,  after  having 
addressed  his  fellow  citizens  in  a  train  of  the  warmest 
affection,  the   purest  patriotism,  and  the   most  elevated 
political  morality  and  eloquence,  he  declined  being  again  a 
candidate  for  office,  and  crowned  with  the  highest  honours 
which  a  free  people  could  confer  on  their  most  respected 
and  revered  citizen,  bade  a  final  adieu  to  all  further  active 
engagement  in  the  public  afl:airs  of  the  government  and 
country.    The  life  of  this  great  man  passed  without  a 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  33 

Stain.  The  annals  of  nations  contain  no  account  of  a 
more  unimpeachable  character,  either  in  military  or  civil 
life.  And  what  adds  much  to  the  splendour  of  his  reputa- 
tion, he  was  as  highly  distinguished  as  a  statesman,  as  he 
liad  previously  been  as  a  soldier.  In  both  he  was  illus- 
trious in  the  most  exalted  sense  of  the  word  ;  while  in 
private  hfe,  he  was,  in  an  exemplary  degree,  amiable  and 
virtuous,  beloved  by  his  most  intimate  friends,  and  re- 
spected and  venerated  by  an  enlarged  and  highly  respec- 
table circle  of  neighbours  and  acquaintance. 

(Such  wars  ffie  man  who  was  stigmatized  in  this  letter 
to  a  foreigner,  residing  in  a  distant  quarter  of  the  globe, 
•as  a  member  of  an  "Anglo-monarchic-aristocratic  party" 
in  this  country,  whose  "  avoived  object  was  to  impose  on 
us  the  substance,  as  they  had  already  given  us  the  form, 
of  the  British  government."  General  Washington's  re- 
publicanism is  here  expressly  denied,  notwithstanding  he 
had  risked  more,  suffered  more,  and  made  greater  exer- 
tions, to  support  and  establish  the  republican  character, 
principles,  and  government  of  his  country,  than  any  other 
individual  in  it. 

After  having  thus  attempted  to  fix  upon  General  Wash- 
ington the  reproach  of  being  a  monarchist,  and  of  enmity 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Jefferson 
proceeds  to  say  of  the  monarchical  party,  of  which  he 
obviously  considered  General  Washington  as  the  head, 
"  They  would  wrest  from  us  that  liberty  which  we  have 
obtained  by  so  much  labor  and  peril ;  but  we  shall  pre- 
serve it.  Our  mass  of  weight  and  riches  are  so  powerful, 
that  we  have  nothing  to  fear  from  any  attempt  against  us 
by  force."  In  the  letter,  as  published  in  his  works,  this 
passage  stands  thus  :  "  In  short,  we  are  likely  to  preserve 
the  liberty  we  have  obtained  only  by  unremitting  labors 
and  perils.  But  we  shall  preserve  it ;  and  our  mass  of 
weight  and  wealth  on  the  good  side  is  so  great  as  to 
leave  no  danger  that  force  will  ever  be  attempted  against 

5 


3:4  HISTORY   OF   THE 

US."  In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  again  remarked,  that 
no  man,  even  of  ordinary  understanding  and  capacity, 
will  ever  believe  that  the  difference  of  phraseology  between 
these  two  versions  of  this  part  of  the  letter,  was  caused 
by  a  mere  mistake  in  the  translation.  The  first  implies  a 
full  expectation  that  force  might  be  used  to  destroy  our 
liberties.  It  says,  "  They  would  icrest  from  us  that  liberty," 
&c.  The  second,  that  we  are  likely  to  preserve  the  liberty 
we  have  obtained,"  &c.  without  a  suggestion  of  any  at- 
tempt to  wrest  it  from  us. 

The  letter,  however,  states  the  manner  in  which  our 
liberties  are  to  be  preserved.  It  says — "  It  is  sufficient 
that  we  guard  ourselves,  and  that  we  break  the  Lilliputian 
ties  by  which  they  have  bound  us,  in  the  first  slumbers 
which  have  succeeded  our  labours."  In  the  letter  in  the 
pubhshed  works,  this  sentence  is  thus  expressed — "  We 
have  only  to  awake  and  snap  the  Lilliputian  cords  with 
which  they  have  been  entangling  us  during  the  first  step 
which  succeeded  our  labors."  This  can  be  considered  in 
no  other  light,  than  that  of  referring  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  It  has  already  appeared,  by  the 
language  used  in  a  variety  of  instances  in  his  letters  that 
have  been  quoted,  that  Mr.  Jefferson  had  strong  objections 
to  the  constitution,  and  that  in  his  judgment,  "  all  that 
was  good  in  it  might  have  been  included  in  three  or  four 
articles,"  added  to  the  old  confederation.  As  it  was,  the 
government  was  too  strong  for  his  taste.  The  first  slum- 
bers which  succeeded  the  labours  of  the  country  in  achieving 
its  independence,  must  mean  the  period  between  the  peace 
of  1783,  and  the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  This  con- 
stitution was  ^^the  LillijnUian  tie''' by  which  the  nation 
had  been  bound,  while  in  a  fit  of  drowsiness ;  but  which 
must  be  broken,  to  insure  its  safety  from  bondage.  This 
passage  will  assist  the  community  in  forming  a  just  esti- 
mate of  Mr.  Jefferson's  regard  for  the  constitution,  and 
of  the  government  which  it  provided,  and  over  which  he 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  35 

was  destined  at  a  future  day  to  preside.  This  constitu- 
tion General  Washington  assisted  in  forming ;  he  recom- 
mended it  strongly  to  the  adoption  of  the  country ;  and 
he  devoted  his  great  talents  and  influence  for  eight  years 
to  the  developement  of  its  principles,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  its  operations;  and  was  laboriously  engaged  in 
these  patriotic  laboiTrs  at  the  moment  when  Mr.  Jefferson 
was  thus  secretly  calumniating  his  character,  and  im- 
peaching his  integrity ;  and  at  the  same  time  declaring, 
that  our  liberties  could  only  be  preserved  by  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  constitution. 

But  Mr.  Jefferson  had  still  another  machine  to  make 
use  of  in  accomplishing  our  deliverance  from  the  dangers 
with  which  our  liberties  were  surrounded,  and  by  which 
our  freedom  was  threatened.  "  It  suffices,"  says  the  let- 
ter first  published,  "  that  we  arrest  the  progress  of  that 
system  of  ingratitude,  and  injustice  towards  France,  from 
which  they  would  alienate  us,  to  bring  us  under  British 
influence,^''  <fec. 

/Here  is  to  be  found  the  great  governing  principle  of 
Mr.  Jefferson's  political  conduct. — It  MJa^  friendship  for 
France  and  enmity  to  Great  Britain.  Those  who 
did  not  adopt  his  sentiments,  and  pursue  his  system  of 
policy,  were  monarchists  and  aristocrats ;  and  those  who 
agreed  with  him,  and  placed  themselves  under  his  direc- 
tion and  influence,  were  republicans.^ 

It  should  be  mentioned  as  one  of  the  singular  circum- 
stances which  attend  this  letter,  that  the  sentence  last 
quoted  from  it  is  entirely  omitted  in  that  published  in  the 
posthumous  works.  It  would  seem  very  strange  that  the 
person  who  translated  Mr.  Mazzei's  letter,  should  not  only 
have  added  this  sentence,  and  then  finished  with  an  <fec. 
as  if  there  had  been  something  still  further,  if,  as  Mr. 
Jefferson  would  have  it  understood  by  leaving  a  copy  of 
it  to  be  published  after  his  death,  no  such  sentence  was  in 
the  original. 


\>/ 


36  HISTORY   OF   THE 

j  That  this  attack  upon  the  reputation  of  General  Washk- 
ington,  was  the  result  of  a  political  calculation,  and  intend- 
ed to  answer  the  selfish  and  ambitious  purposes  of  Mr. 
Jefferson,  cannot  for  a  moment  be  doubted.  It  has  been 
seen,  that  General  Washington,  at  the  first  organization  of 
the  government,  appointed  him  Secretary  of  State.  Mr. 
Jefferson's  letters,  on  various  occasiorjs,  are  full  of  expres- 
sions of  respect  and  regard  for  General  Washington.  He 
left  that  office  at  the  close  of  the  year  1793,  and  retired  to 
his  residence  at  Monticello,  in  Virginia.  There  he  wrote, 
in  1818,  the  first  article  in  that  collection  of  "Ana,"  as  it 
now  stands  in  his  book.  This,  it  will  be  observed,  was 
more  than  twenty  years  after  the  date  of  his  letter  to 
Mazzei.  In  that,  when  speaking  of  General  Hamilton's 
influence,  arising  from  the  Bank,  and  other  measures,  and 
alluding  to  his  monarchical  principles,  he  says — "  Here 
then  was  the  real  ground  of  the  opposition  which  was 
made  to  the  course  of  his  administration.  Its  object  was 
to  preserve  the  legislature  pure  and  independent  of  the 
executive,  to  restrain  the  administration  to  republican 
forms  and  principles,  and  not  permit  the  constitution 
to  be  construed  into  a  monarchy,  and  to  be  warped  in 
practice,  into  all  the  principles  and  pollutions  of  their  fa- 
vorite Enghsh  model.  Nor  was  this  an  opposition  to  Ge- 
neral Washington.  He  was  true  to  the  republican  charge 
confided  to  him  ;  and  has  solemnly  and  repeatedly  protest- 
ed to  me,  in  our  conversation,  that  he  would  lose  the  last 
drop  of  his  blood  in  support  of  it." 

In  the  month  of  February,  1791,  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States  passed  a  resolution  calling 
on  the  Secretary  of  State  [Mr.  Jefferson]  "  to  report  to 
congress  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  privileges  and  re- 
strictions of  the  commercial  intercourse  of  the  United 
States  with  foreign  nations,  and  the  measures  which  he 
should  think  proper  to  be  adopted  for  the  improvement  of 
the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  same."    This  report 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  37 

was  not  delivered  until  December,  1793 ;  and  on  the  last 
day  of  that  month  Mr.  Jefferson  resigned  his  office.  On 
the  4th  of  January  following,  the  house  resolved  itself 
into  a  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  report  above  alluded 
to,  "  when  Mr.  Madison  laid  on  the  table  a  series  of  re- 
solutions for  the  consideration  of  the  members." 

"  These  memorable  resolutions,"  says  Judge  Marshall, 
in  his  Life  of  Washington,  "  almost  completely  embraced 
the  idea  of  the  report.  They  imposed  an  additional  duty 
on  the  manufactures,  and  on  the  tonnage  of  vessels,  of 
nations  having  no  commercial  treaty  with  the  United 
States  ;  while  they  reduced  the  duties  already  imposed  by 
law  on  the  tonnage  of  vessels  belonging  to  nations  having 
such  commercial  treaty  ;  and  they  reciprocated  the  restric- 
tions which  were  imposed  on  American  navigation." 

Mr.  |*itkin,in  his  "Political  and  Civil  History  of  the 
United  States,"  when  alluding  to  this  subject,  says,  "  This 
report  of  Mr.  Jefferson  formed  the  basis  of  the  celebrated 
commercial  resolutions,  as  they  were  called,  submitted  to 
the  house  by  Mr.  Madison  early  in  January,  1794.  The 
substance  of  the  first  of  these  resolutions  was,  that  the 
interest  of  the  United  States  would  be  promoted  by  further 
restrictions  and  higher  duties,  in  certain  cases,  on  the 
manufactures  and  navigation  of  foreign  nations.  The  ad- 
ditional duties  were  to  be  laid  on  certain  articles  manu- 
factured by  those  European  nations  which  had  no  commer- 
cial treaties  with  the  United  States.*'  "  The  last  of  the 
resolutions  declared,  that  provision  ought  to  be  made  for 
ascertaining  the  losses  sustained  by  American  citizens, 
from  the  operation  of  particular  regulations  of  any  country 
contravening  the  law  of  nations ;  and  that  these  losses  be 
reimbursed,  in  the  first  instance,  out  of  the  additional  du- 
ties on  the  manufactures  and  vessels  of  the  nations  estab- 
lishing such  regulations." 

A  long  debate  ensued  on  these  resolutions,  in  the  course 
of  which,  Mr.  Fitzsimmons,  a  member  from  Pennsylvania, 


38  HISTORY   OF   THE 

moved  that  in  their  operations  they  should  extend  to  all 
nations.  This  motion  was  met  by  one  from  Mr.  Nicholas, 
of  Virginia,  the  object  of  which  was  to  exempt  all  nations 
from  their  operation  except  Great  Britain. 

"  In  discussing  these  resolutions,"  says  Mr.  Pitkin,  '*  a 
wide  range  was  taken ;  their  political  as  well  as  commer- 
cial effects  upon  foreign  nations,  were  brought  into  view. 
In  the  course  of  the  debate  it  was  soon  apparent,  that  their 
political  bearing  was  considered  as  the  most  important, 
particularly  on  that  nation  to  which  its  operation  was 
finally  limited,  by  the  motion  of  Mr.  Nicholas." 

Judge  Marshall  gives  a  more  extended  sketch  of  the  de- 
bate. The  advocates  of  the  resolutions  said,  they  "  con- 
ceived'it  impracticable  to  do  justice  to  the  interests  of  the 
United  States  without  some  allusion  to  politics ;"  and  after  a 
long  discussion  of  the  character  and  effects  of  the  resolu- 
tions, "  It  was  denied  that  any  real  advantage  was  derived 
from  the  extensive  credit  given  by  the  merchants  of  Great 
Britain.  On  the  contrary  the  use  made  of  British  capital 
was  pronounced  a  great  political  evil.  It  increased  the 
unfavourable  balance  of  trade,  discouraged  domestic  man- 
ufactures, and  promoted  luxury.  But  its  greatest  mischief 
was,  that  it  favored  a  system  of  British  influence,  which 
was  dangerous  to  their  political  security." 

"  It  was  said  to  be  proper  in  deciding  the  question 
under  debate,  to  take  into  view  political,  as  well  as  com- 
mercial considerations.  Ill  will  and  jealousy  had  at  all 
times  been  the  predominant  features  of  the  conduct  of 
England  to  the  United  States.  That  government  had 
grossly  violated  the  treaty  of  peace,  had  declined  a  com- 
mercial treaty,  had  instigated  the  Indians  to  raise  the 
tomahawk  and  scalping  knife  against  American  citizens, 
had  let  loose  the  Algerines  upon  their  unprotected  com- 
merce, and  had  insulted  their  flag,  and  pillaged  their  trade 
in  every  quarter  of  the  world.    These  facts  being  noto- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  39 

lious,  it  was  astonishing  to  hear  gentlemen  ask  how  had 
Britain  injured  their  commerce? 

"  The  conduct  of  France,  on  the  contrary,  had  been 
warm  and  friendly.  That  nation  had  respected  American 
rights,  and  had  offered  to  entei;  into  commercial  arrange- 
ments on  the  liberal  basis  of  perfect  reciprocity. 

"  In  contrasting  the  ability  of  the  two  nations  to  support 
a  commercial  conflict,  it  was  said  Great  Britain,  tottering 
under  the  weight  of  a  king,  a  court,  a  nobility,  a  priest- 
hood, armies,  navies,  debts,  and  all  the  complicated  ma- 
chinery of  oppression  which  serves  to  increase  the  number 
of  unproductive,  and  lessen  the  number  of  productive 
hands ;  at  this  moment  engaged  in  a  foreign  war ;  taxa- 
tion already  carried  to  the  ultimatum  of  financial  device ; 
the  ability  of  the  people  already  displayed  in  the  payment 
of  taxes  constituting  a  political  phenomenon ;  all  prove 
the  debility  of  the  system  and  the  decrepitude  of  old  age. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  United  States,  in  the  flower  of 
youth ;  increasing  in  hands ;  increasing  in  wealth  ;  and 
although  an  imitative  policy  has  unfortunately  prevailed 
in  the  erection  of  a  funded  debt,  in  the  establishment  of 
an  army,  in  the  establishment  of  a  navy,  and  all  the  paper 
machinery  for  increasing  the  number  of  unproductive,  and 
lessening  the  number  of  productive  hands ;  yet  the  opera- 
tion of  natural  causes  has,  as  yet,  in  some  degree,  coun- 
tervailed their  influence,  and  still  furnishes  a  great  superi- 
ority in  comparison  with  Great  Britain." 

"  The  present  time  was  declared  to  be  peculiarly  favour- 
able to  the  views  of  the  United  States.  It  was  only  while 
their  enemy  was  embarrassed  with  a  dangerous  foreign 
war,  that  they  could  hope  for  the  establishment  of  just  and 
equal  principles." 

The  real  object  of  this  report  by  the  Secretary  of  State, 
and  of  the  resolutions  introduced  by  Mr.  Madison,  was 
stated  in  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  the  latter.  ''  The 
discussion  of  this  subject,  it  was  said,  ^'  has  assumed  an 


40  HISTORY   OF   THE 

appearance  which  must  be  surprising  to  a  stranger,  and 
painful  in  the  extreme  to  ourselves.  The  supreme  legis- 
lature of  the  United  States  is  seriously  deliberating,  not 
upon  the  welfare  of  our  own  citizens,  but  upon  the  rela- 
tive circumstances  of  two  European  nations  ;  and  this  de- 
liberation has  not  for  its  object  the  relative  benefits  of  their 
markets  to  us,  but  which  form  of  government  is  best  and 
most  like  our  own,  which  people  feel  the  greatest  affection 
for  us,  and  what  measures  we  can  adopt  which  will  best 
humble  one,  and  exalt  the  other. 

"  The  primary  motive  of  these  resolutions,  as  acknow- 
V^    ledged  by  their  defenders,  is  not  the  increase  of  our  agri- 
culture, manufactures,  or  navigation,  but  to  humble  Great 
Britain,  and  build  up  France." 

\And  such  was  unquestionably  their  real  character  and 
object.  But  the  intended  operation  of  them,  and  of  the 
language  and  sentiments  uttered  respecting  them  in  debate, 
was  so  clear  and  explicit,  that  they  could  not  be  mistaken, 
j  and  therefore  they  could  not  fail  of  producing  their  designed 
J  effect  upon  the  feelings  of  the  British  government  and 
people.  Nor  could  they  be  viewed  in  any  other  light,  than 
as  expressing  great  hostility  to  the  interests  of  that  nation, 
and  strong  partiality  to  those  of  France.  And  hence  may 
be  discerned  the  first  traces  of  that  system  of  policy  towards 
Great  Britain,  which  originated  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  and 
was  steadily  pursued  by  him  through  the  remainder  of  his 
political  life,  and  by  his  immediate  successor  in  the  admi- 
nistration of  the  national  government,  until  it  terminated 
in  the  war  of  1812.  \ 

To  establish  the  truth  of  the  position  just  advanced,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  give  a  historical  account  of  the  mea- 
sures of  the  government,  relating  to  the  general  subject, 
under  the  administrations  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Madi- 
son. The  facts  which  will  be  adduced,  will  be  derived 
from  the  public  records  and  state  papers,  or  from  other 
sources  equally  authentic  and  creditable. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  41 

/in  April,  1794,  Mi\Jay,  then  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States,  was  appointed  minister  extraordinary  to  the  court 
of  Great  Britain.  This  mission  was  strongly  disliked  by 
the  party  of  which  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  acknowledged 
leader.  But  notwithstanding  their  disapprobation  it  was 
pursued;  and  in  November  following,  a  treaty  was  con- 
cluded, in  which  the  great  causes  of  uneasiness  and 
animosity  between  the  two  nations  were  adjusted,  and  a 
foundation  laid  for  their  future  peace,  harmony,  and  friend- 
ship. As  soon  as  the  news  reached  this  country  that  such 
^  treaty  .had  been  concluded  and  signed,  and  long  before 
its  contents  were  known,  there  was  a  great  degree  of 
excitement  among  what  Mr.  Jefferson  called  the  republi- 
can party.  Notwithstanding  all  the  clamour,  the  treaty 
was  submitted  to  the  Senate,  who  advised  its  ratification, 
with  the  exception  of  one  article.  One  member  of  that 
body,  however,  in  violation  of  the  injunction  of  secrecy 
under  which  they  acted,  and  before  the  treaty  was  signed 
by  the  President,  published  it  in  a  newspaper.  Imme- 
diately upon  its  appearance,  the  country  was  thrown  into 
a  ferment,  and  every  possible  effort  was  made  to  induce 
the  President  to  reject  it.  Meetings  were  held,  violent 
resolutions  were  passed,  and  inflammatory  addresses  were 
made,  and  circulated,  with  the  hope,  if  not  the  expectation, 
of  overawing  that  dignified  and  inflexible  magistrate  and 
patriot,  and  of  inducing  him  to  withhold  his  final  approba- 
tion from  the  treaty.  The  attempts  all  failed  ; — the  treaty 
was  ratified;  and  the  nation  derived  from  it  numerous  and 
substantial  benefits.    \ 

But  it  met  the  most  decided  disapprobation  of  Mr. 
Jefferson.  In  a  letter  to  Mann  Page,  dated  August  30th, 
1795,  he  says — "  I  do  not  believe  with  the  Roche- 
foucaults  and  Montaignes,  that  fourteen  out  of  fifteen  men 
are  rogues.  I  believe  a  great  abatement  from  that  propor- 
tion may  be  made  in  favour  of  general  honesty.  But  I 
have  always  found  that  rogues  ivould  he  uppermost ^  ^nd  I 

6 


42  HISTORY    OF    THE 

do  not  know  that  the  proportion  is  too  strong  for  the  higher 
orders,  and  for  those  who,  rising  above  the  swinish  multi- 
tude, always  contrive  to  nestle  themselves  into  the  places 
of  power  and  profit.     These  rogues  set  out  with  stealing 
the  people's  good  opinion,  and  then  steal  from  them  the 
right  of  withdrawing  it,  by  contriving  laws  and  associations 
against  the  power  of  the  people  themselves.     Our  part  of 
the  country  is  in  a  considerable  fermentation  on  what  they 
suspect  to  be  a  recent  roguery  of  this  kind.    They  say  that 
while  all  hands  were  below  deck,  mending  sails,  sphcing 
ropes,  and  every  one  at  his  own  business,  and  the  captain 
in  his  cabin  attending  to  his  log-book  and  chart,  a  rogue 
of  a  pilot  has  run  them  into  an  enemy's  port.     But  meta- 
phor apart,  there  is  much  dissatisfaction  with  Mr.  Jay  and 
his  treaty.''^   In  a  letter  to  William  B.  Giles,  dated  Decem- 
ber 31,  1795,  he  says — "  I  am  well  pleased  with  the  man- 
ner in  which  your  house  have  testified  their  sense  of  the 
treaty ;  while  their  refusal  to  pass  the  original  clause  of 
the  reported  answer  proved  their  condemnation,  the  con- 
trivance to  let  it  disappear  silently  respected  appearances 
in  favour  of  the  president,  who  errs  as  other  men  do,  but 
errs  with  integrity."     In  a  letter  to  Edward  Rutledge, 
dated  November  30th,  1795,  he  says — "  I  join  with  you  in 
thinking  the  treaty  an  execrable  thing.     But  both  nego- 
tiators must  *have  understood,  that  as  there  were  articles 
in  it  which  could  not  be  carried  into  execution  without  the 
aid  of  the  legislatures  on  both  sides,  therefore  it  must  be 
referred  to  them,  and  that  these  legislatures,  being  free 
agents,  would  not  give  it  their  support  if  they  disapproved 
of  it.     I  trust  the  popular  branch  of  our  legislature  will 
disapprove  of  it,  and  thus  rid  us  of  an  infamous  act,  which 
is  really  nothing  more  than  a  treaty  of  alliance  between 
England  and  the  Anglomen  of  this  country,  against  the 
legislature  and  people  of  the  United  States." 

This  animosity  against  the  treaty  cannot  be  accounted 
for,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  a  beneficial  measure  to 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  43 

the  nation.  After  the  excitement  which  its  publication 
and  ratification  produced  had  subsided,  its  advantages  were 
reahzed  and  acknowledged  ;  and  it  may  be  said  with 
safety,  that  no  subsequent  arrangement  between  the  two 
nations  has  ever  been  as  beneficial  to  the  United  States^ 
as  this.  But  it  removed  many  sources  of  difficulty — the 
western  posts,  which  the  British  had  retained  in  violation 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  were  surrendered  ;  and  the  com- 
merce of  the  country  was  greatly  benefited.  And  it  was 
calculated  to  remove  a  variety  of  causes  of  uneasiness,  of 
complaint,  of  Interference,  and  of  recrimination,  between 
the  nations,  and  therefore  was  thoroughly  reprobated  by 
Mr.  Jefferson.  And  it  appears,  by  the  last  quotation  from 
his  letters,  that  rather  than  have  it  established,  and  go  into 
operation,  he  would  have  rejoiced  if  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives had  encroached  upon  the  constitutional  prero- 
gative of  the  President  and  Senate,  and  withheld  the 
necessary  legislative  aid  to  carry  its  provisions  into  effect. 
The  constitution  authorizes  the  President,  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make  treaties  ;  and 
treaties,  when  constitutionally  made,  are  declared  to  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Of  course,  when  thus  made, 
if  they  require  legislative  acts  to  carry  them  into  effect,  the 
legislature  are  bound  by  their  constitutional  duty,  to  pass 
such  laws  ;  otherwise  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  may  be 
rendered  inoperative,  and  be  defeated,  by  one  branch  of 
the  government.  This  bold  experiment,  Mr.  Jefferson 
would  have  been  gratified  to  see  made,  rather  than  have 
peace  and  friendship  established  between  this  country  and 
Great  Britain. 

Nor  is  the  coarse  attack  upon  Mr.  Jay's  character,  by 
Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  letter  above  quoted,  the  least  repre- 
hensible circumstance  in  his  conduct  in  relation  to  this 
treaty.  Mr.  Jay  was  one  of  the  most  pure  and  virtuous 
patriots  that  this  country  ever  produced.  His  talents  were 
of  a  very  high  order,  his  pubjic  services  were  of  the  most 


44  HISTORY   OF   THE 

meritorious  and  disinterested  description,  and  his  public 
and  private  reputation  without  reproach.  Yet,  with  an  air 
of  levity,  approaching  jocularity,  he  is  represented  by  Mr. 
Jefferson  as  one  of  those  fortunate  "rogz/^s,"  who  contrive 
to  keep  themselves  uppermost  in  the  world, — one  who  had 
been  guilty  of  an  "infamous  act"  in  making  the  treaty. 
Happy  would  it  have  been  for  his  calumniator,  if  his  cha- 
racter had  been  equally  pure,  and  his  services  equally  dis- 
interested and  patriotic. 

When  Mr.  Jefferson  came  into  office  as  chief  magistrate 
of  the  Union,  in  1801,  Rufus  King  was  minister  from  the 
United  States  to  Great  Britain.  In  June,  1802,  that  gen- 
tleman was  instructed  to  adjust  the  boundary  line  between 
the  two  nations ;  and  in  May,  1803,  in  pursuance  of  his 
instructions,  he  concluded  a  convention  with  that  govern- 
ment. A  dispute  on  this  subject  had  existed  between  the 
two  countries,  from  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
in  1783,  to  the  date  of  the  above  mentioned  convention. 
In  forming  this  convention,  it  is  known  that  Mr.  King's 
views  were  fully  acceded  to  by  the  British  commissioner, 
Lord  Hawkesbury,  the  latter  having  left  the  draft  of  the 
convention  to  Mr.  King,  and  fully  approved  of  that  which 
he  prepared.  In  a  message  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  Congress,  dated  October  17,  1803,  is  the  follow- 
ing ]>assage — "  A  further  knowledge  of  the  ground,  in  the 
north-eastern  and  north-western  angles  of  the  United 
States,  has  evinced  that  the  boundaries  established  by  the 
treaty  of  Paris,  between  the  British  territories  and  ours 
in  those  parts,  were  too  imperfectly  described  to  be  sus- 
ceptible of  execution.  It  has  therefore  been  thought 
worthy  of  attention  for  preserving  and  cherishing  the  har- 
mony and  useful  intercourse  subsisting  between  the  two 
nations,  to  remove  by  timely  arrangements,  what  unfa- 
vourable incidents  might  otherwise  render  a  ground  of 
future  misunderstanding.  A  convention  has  therefore 
been  entered  ihto,  which  provides  for  a  practicable  demar- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  45 

cation  of  those  limits,  to  the  satisfaction  of  both  parties. 
The  following  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  King,  which 
accompanied  the  convention,  when  it  was  transmitted  to 
the  United  States  government 

"  London,  May  13, 1803. 

"  Sir, — I  have  the  honour  to  transmit  herewith  the  con- 
vention which  I  yesterday  signed  in  triplicate  with  Lord 
Hawkesbury  relative  to  our  boundaries.  The  convention 
does  not  vary  in  any  thing  material  from  the  tenour  of  my 
instructions.  The  line  through  the  bay  of  Passamaquoddy 
secures  our  interest  in  that  quarter.  The  provision  for 
running,  instead  of  describing,  the  line  between  the  north- 
west corner  of  Nova  Scotia  and  the  source  of  Connecticut 
river,  has  been  inserted  as  well  on  account  of  the  progress 
of  the  British  settlements  towards  the  source  of  the  Con- 
necticut, as  of  the  difficulty  in  agreeing  upon  any  new  de- 
scription of  the  manner  of  running  this  line  without  more 
exact  information  than  is  at  present  possessed  of  the  geo- 
graphy of  the  country. 

"  The  source  of  the  Mississippi  nearest  to  the  Lake  of 
the  Woods,  according  to  Mackenzie's  report,  will  be  found 
about  twenty-nine  miles  to  the  westward  of  any  part  of 
that  lake,  which  is  represented  to  be  nearly  circular. 
Hence  a  direct  line  between  the  northwesternmost  part  of 
the  lake,  and  the  nearest  source  of  the  Mississippi,  which 
is  preferred  by  this  government,  has  appeared  to  me 
equally  advantageous  with  the  lines  we  had  proposed. 

*'  RuFUs  King." 

On  the  24th  of  October,  one  week  after  the  delivery  of 
the  message  to  Congress,  from  which  the  passage  above 
quoted  is  taken,  Mr.  Jefferson  submitted  this  convention 
to  the  Senate,  accompanied  by  the  following  message  :-— 

"  I  lay  before  you  the  convention  signed  on  the  12th 
day  of  May  last,  between  the  United   States  and  Grealt 


46  HISTORY  OP  THE 

Britain,  for  settling  their  boundaries  in  the  north-eastern 
and  north-western  parts  of  the  United  States,  which  was 
mentioned  in  my  general  message  of  the  17th  instant;  to- 
gether with  such  papers  relating  thereto  as  may  enable 
you  to  determine  whether  you  will  advise  and  consent  to 
its  ratification." 

A  letter  from  Mr.  Madison,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  minister  at  Great  Britain,  dated  February  14th, 
^^:i§0l7  contains  the  following  passage  : — 

'*  You  will  herewith  receive  the  ratification,  by  the  Pre- 
sident and  Senate,  of  the  convention  with  the  British  go- 
vernment, signed  on  the  12th  of  May,  1803,  with  an  ex- 
ception of  the  5th  article.  Should  the  British  government 
accede  to  this  change  in  the  instrument,  you  will  proceed 
to  an  exchange  of  ratifications,  and  transmit  the  one  re- 
ceived without  delay,  in  order  that  the  proper  steps  may 
be  taken  for  carrying  the  convention  into  eflfect." 

"  The  objection  to  the  fifth  article  appears  to  have 
arisen  from  the  posteriority  of  the  signature  and  ratifica- 
tion of  this  convention  to  those  of  the  last  convention  with 
France,  ceding  Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  and  from 
a  presumption  that  the  line  to  be  run  in  pursuance  of  the 
fifth  article,  might  thence  be  found  or  alledged  to  abridge 
the  northern  extent  of  that  acquisition." 

Then  follow  a  series  of  reasons  intended  to  show  why  the 
British  government  ought  not  to  make  objections  to  the 
alterations  proposed  by  ours. 

'*  First.  It  would  be  unreasonable  that  any  advantage 
against  the  United  States  should  be  constructively  autho- 
rized by  the  posteriority  of  the  dates  in  question,  the  in- 
structions given  to  enter  into  the  convention,  and  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  parties  at  the  time  of  signing  it,  having 
no  reference  whatever  to  any  territorial  rights  of  the 
United  States  acquired  by  the  previous  convention  with 
France,  but  referring  merely  to  the  territorial  rights  as 
understood  at  the  date  of  the  instructions  for  and  signa- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  47 

ture  of  the  British  convention.  The  copy  of  a  letter  from 
Mr.  King,  hereto  annexed,  is  precise  and  conclusive  on 
this  subject. 

"  Secondly.  If  the  fifth  article  be  expunged,  the  north 
boundary  of  Louisiana  will,  as  is  reasonable,  remain  the 
same  in  the  hands  of  the  United  States  as  it  was  in  the 
hands  of  France,  and  may  be  adjusted  and  established  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  and  authorities  which  would  in 
that  case  have  been  applicable. 

"  Fourthly.  Laying  aside,  however,  all  the  objections  to 
the  fifth  article,  the  proper  extension  of  a  dividing  line  in 
that  quarter  will  be  equally  open  for  friendly  negociation 
after,  as  without,  agreeing  to  the  other  parts  of  the  con- 
vention, and  considering  the  remoteness  of  the  time  'at 
which  such  a  line  will  become  actually  necessary,  the  post- 
ponement of  it  is  of  little  consequence.  The  truth  is  that 
the  British  government  seemed  at  one  time  to  favour  this 
delay,  and  the  instructions  given  by  the  United  States  rea- 
dily acquiesced  in  it." 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  in  the  message  to  Congress, 
on  the  17th  of  October,  1803,  from  which  we  have  just 
quoted  a  passage,  Mr.  Jefferson  speaks  of  this  convention 
as  one  that  would  give  satisfaction  to  all  parties.  It  seems, 
however,  not  to  have  been  ratified,  although  it  was  submit- 
ted to  the  Senate  for  their  approbation  only  one  week  after 
the  date  of  the  abovementioned  message  to  Congress.  All 
that  can  be  ascertained  respecting  the  causes  of  its  rejec- 
tion, are  to  be  found  in  the  above  cited  letter  from  the 
Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Monroe,  where  the  principal 
ground  appears  to  be  that  it  might  in  some  way  affect  our 
concerns  icith  France.  By  its  rejection,  however,  the  dis- 
pute about  the  boundary  line  was  left  unadjusted,  and  has 
remained  so  to  this  day. 

Mr.  Jay's  treaty  expired  in  1804.  As  the  country  had 
experienced  its  beneficial  effects  for  ten  years,  it  was  rea- 
sonable to  expect  that  it  would  have  been  renewed  at  the 


4S  HISTORY  OF  THE 

earliest  opportunity.  On  the  7th  of  August,  1804,  Mr. 
Monroe,  then  ambassador  from  the  United  States  to  Great 
Britain,  wrote  a  letter  on  that  subject  to  Mr.  Madison, 
then  Secretary  of  State,  from  which  the  following  are  ex- 
tracts. 

"  I  received  a  note  from  Lord  Harrowby  on  the  3d  in- 
stant, requesting  me  to  call  on  him  at  his  office  the  next 
day,  which  I  did.  His  lordship  asked  me,  in  what  light 
was  our  treaty  viewed  by  our  government  ?  I  replied  that 
it  had  been  ratified  with  the  exception  of  the  fifth  article, 
as  I  had  informed  him  on  a  former  occasion.  He  observed 
that  he  meant  the  treaty  of  1794,  which  by  one  of  its 
stipulations  was  to  expire  two  years  after  the  signature  of 
preliminary  articles  for  concluding  the  then  existing  war 
between  Great  Britain  and  France.  He  wished  to  know 
whether  we  considered  the  treaty  as  actually  expired.  I 
said  that  I  did  presume  there  could  be  but  one  opinion  on 
that  point  in  respect  to  the  commercial  part  of  the  treaty, 
which  was,  that  it  had  expired  :  that  the  first  ten  articles 
were  made  permanent ;  that  other  articles  had  been  exe- 
cuted, but  then,  being  limited  to  a  definite  period  which 
had  passed,  must  be  considered  as  having  expired  with  it." 

After  a  further  detail  of  the  conversation,  the  letter 
proceeds — 

"  He  asked,  how  far  it  would  be  agreeable  to  our  go- 
vernment to  stipulate,  that  the  treaty  of  1794:  should  remain 
in  force  until  tico  years  should  expire  after  the  conclusion  of 
the  'present  ivar?  I  told  his  lordship  that  I  had  no  power 
to  agree  to  such  a  proposal ;  that  the  President,  animated 
by  a  sincere  desire  to  cherish  and  perpetuate  the  friendly 
relations  subsisting  between  the  two  countries,  had  been 
disposed  to  postpone  the  regulation  of  their  general  commer- 
cial system  till  the  period  should  arrive,  when  each  party, 
enjoying  the  blessings  of  peace,  might  find  itself  at  liberty  to 
pay  the  subject  the  attention  it  merited  ;  that  he  wished  those 
regulations  to  be  founded  in  the  permanent  interests,  justly 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  49 

and  liberally  viewed,  of  both  countries  ;  that  he  sought  for 
the  present  only  to  remove  certain  topics  which  produced 
irritation  in  the  intercourse,  such  as  the  impressment  of 
seamen,  and  in  our  commerce  with  other  powers,  parties 
to  the  present  war,  according  to  a  project  which  I  had  the 
honor  to  present  to  his  predecessor  some  months,  since, 
with  which  I  presumed  his  lordship  was  acquainted.  He 
seemed  desirous  to  decline  any  conversation  on  this  latter 
subject,  though  it  was  clearly  to  be  inferred,  from  what  he 
said,  to  be  his  opinion,  that  the  poUcy  which  our  govern- 
ment seemed  disposed  to  pursue  in  respect  to  the  general 
system,  could  not  otherwise  than  be  agreeable  to  his.  He 
then  added,  that  his  government  might  probably,  for  the 
present,  adopt  the  treaty  of  1794,  as  the  rule  in  its  own  con- 
€erns,  or  in  respect  to  duties  on  importations  from  our  country, 
and,  as  I  understood  him,  all  other  subjects  to  which  it 
extended ;  in  which  case,  he  said,  if  the  treaty  had  expired, 
the  ministry  would  take  the  responsibility  on  itself,  as  there 
would  be  no  law  to  sanction  the  measure  :  that  in  so  doing, 
he  presumed  that  the  measure  would  be  well  received  by 
our  government,  and  a  similar  practice,  in  what  concerned 
Great  Britain,  reciprocated.  I  observed,  that  on  that  par- 
ticular topic  I  had  no  authority  to  say  any  thing  specially, 
the  proposal  being  altogether  new  and  unexpected ;  that 
I  should  communicate  it  to  you ;  and  that  I  doubted  not 
that  it  would  be  considered  by  the  President  with  the  at- 
tention it  merited.  Not  wishing,  however,  to  authorize  an 
inference,  that  that  treaty  should  ever  form  a  basis  of  a 
future  one  between  the  two  countries,  I  repeated  some  re- 
marks which  I  had  made  to  Lord  Hawkesbury  in  the  in- 
terview which  we  had  just  before  he  left  the  department 
of  foreign  affairs,  by  observing  that  in  forming  a  new  treaty 
we  mv^t  begin  de  novo ;  that  America  was  a  young  and 
thriving  country  ;  that  at  the  time  that  treaty  was  formed, 
she  had  little  experience  of  her  relations  with  foreign 
powers ;  that  ten  years  had  since  elapsed,  a  great  portion 

7 


50  HISTORY    OF   THE 

of  the  term  within  which  she  had  held  the  rank  of  a  sepa- 
rate and  independent  nation,  and  exercised  the  powers 
belonging  to  it ;  that  our  interests  were  better  understood 
on  both  sides  at  this  time  than  they  then  were ;  that  the 
treaty  was  known  to  contain  things  that  neither  liked ; 
that  I  spoke  with  confidence  on  that  point  on  our  part ; 
thai  in  making  a  new  treaty  we  might  ingraft  from  that 
into  it  what  suited  us,  omit  what  we  disliked,  and  add 
what  the  experience  of  our  respective  interests  might  sug- 
gest to  be  proper ;  and  being  equally  anxious  to  preclude 
the  inference  of  any  sanction  to  tlie  maritime  pretensions 
under  that  treaty,  in  respect  to  neutral  commerce,  I  deem- 
ed it  proper  to  advert  again  to  the  project,  which  I  had 
presented  some  time  since,  for  the  regulation  of  those 
points,  to  notice  its  contents,  and  express  an  earnest  wish 
that  his  lordship  would  find  leisure,  and  be  disposed  to  act 
on  it.  He  excused  himself  again  from  entering  into  this 
subject,  from  the  weight  and  urgency  of  other  business^ 
the  difliculty  of  the  subject,  and  other  general  remarks  of 
the  kind." 

By  this  correspondence  it  appears,  that  it  was  a  part 
of  Mr.  Jefferson's  policy,  whenever  Mr.  Jay's  treaty 
should  expire,  not  to  renew  it.  There  were  undoubtedly 
personal  reasons  for  the  adoption  of  this  course.  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson, as  has  been  seen,  considered  that  treaty  as  an  exe- 
crable measure,  and  regarded  its  ratification  as  opposed 
to  the  interests  of  revolutionary  France,  to  which  he  was, 
in  heart  and  soul,  devoted.  The  advantages  of  the  treaty 
had  been  so  fully  realized,  that  it  was  natural  to  expect 
that  our  government  would  have  yielded  at  once  to  the 
offer  of  the  British  ministry  to  renew  it.  Their  wil- 
lingness to  form  a  new  treaty,  upon  the  principles  of  Mr. 
Jay's,  was  repeatedly  expressed,  first  by  Lord  Hawkes- 
bury,  in  April,  1804,  and  afterwards  by  Lord  Harrowby, 
in  August  of  the  same  year.  Lord  Hawkesbury,  in  a  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Monroe,  '*  went  so  far  as  to  express  a 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  51 

wish  that  the  principles  of  the  treaty  of  1794  might  be 
adopted  in  the  convention,  which  it  was  then  proposed  to 
make;  and  Lord  Harrowby  informed  him,  "  that  his  go- 
vernment might  probably,  for  the  present,  adopt  the  treaty 
of  1794,  as  the  rule  in  its  own  concerns,  or  in  respect  to 
importations  from  our  country,  and  as  he  understood  him, 
all  other  subjects  to  which  it  extended."  He  even  went 
further,  and  said,  if  the  treaty  had  expired  (about  which 
Lord  Harrowby  appeared  to  doubt)  the  ministry  would 
take  the  responsibility  on  itself,  as  there  would  be  no  law 
to  sanction  the  measure."  But  Mr.  Monroe,  acting  under 
his  instructions,  was  not  willing  to  authorize  even  an  in- 
ference, that  the  treaty  of  1794  should  ever  form  the  basis 
of  a  future  one,  repeated  to  him  the  remarks  he  had  pre- 
viously made  to  Lord  Hawkesbury,  and  observed,  that  in 
forming  a  new  one,  we  must  begin  de  novo — that  we  were 
then  but  little  experienced  in  our  relations  with  foreign 
countries ;  that  our  interests  were  better  understood  on 
both  sides  than  when  the  treaty  was  made — and  that  in 
making  a  new  one,  we  might  introduce  into  it  what  suited 
us,  omit  what  we  disliked,  and  add  what  experience  might 
suggest  to  be  proper. 

The  idea  that  the  agents  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  in  this  attempt  at  negotiation,  understood  the 
interests  of  their  country  more  thoroughly  than  those  con- 
nected with  the  negotiation  of  1794,  is  but  little  short  of 
ludicrous.  The  treaty  negotiated  by  Mr.  Jay,  in  its  ope- 
ration and  effects,  proved  to  be  a  most  beneficial  one  to 
the  country ;  and  it  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  no  subse- 
quent arrangement  with  Great  Britain  has  been  equally 
advantageous.  {Under  Mr.  Jefferson's  directions,  an  effort 
was  constantly  made  to  procure  some  provision  against 
impressment — an  object,  certainly  of  great  importance  to 
our  country.  But,  when  it  was  found  impracticable  to 
induce  the  British  government  to  enter  into  stipulai;ion3  on 
that  subject,  it  might  well  be  doubted  whether  it  was  good 


52  HISTORY  OF  THE 

policy,  by  insisting  upon  an  impracticable  measure,  to 
sacrifice  all  the  other  advantages  which  must  necessarily 
arise  from  a  just  and  reasonable  commercial  treaty  with 
that  nation.  To  this  day  such  a  stipulation  has  not  been 
obtained  ;  but  the  disadvantages  experienced  by  the  trade 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  want  of  a  treaty  like  that 
negotiated  by  Mr.  Jay,  have  been  numerous,  and  greatly 
detrimental.  Those  advantages  were  lost  by  not  renewing 
that  treaty;  and  the  treaty  was  not  renewed,  it  is  believed 
the  facts  will  warrant  the  declaration,  because  it  com- 
ported with  Mr.  Jeflferson's  policy,  at  all  times,  to  keep 
alive  a  controversy  with  Great  Britain.] 

(in  April,  1806,  William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  was 
appointed  joint  commissioner  with  Mr.  Monroe,  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  all  matters  of  diflference  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  "relative  to  wrongs 
committed  between  the  parties  on  the  high  seas,  or  other 
waters,  and  for  establishing  the  principles  of  navigation 
and  commerce  between  them."  Their  negotiations  were 
held  under  the  ministry  of  Mr.  Fox,  who  was  considered 
as  a  great  friend  to  the  United  States.  Owing  to  his 
sickness,  the  business  on  the  part  of  the  British  govern- 
ment was  placed  in  the  hands  of  his  nephew.  Lord  Hol- 
land, and  Lord  Auckland.  On  the  11th  of  September, 
1806,  the  American  commissioners  wrote  to  the  secretary 
of  state,  giving  him  an  account  of  their  first  interview  with 
the  noblemen  abovementioned,  in  which,  when  noticing  the 
matter  of  impressment,  they  say — "  On  the  impressment 
subject  it  was  soon  apparent  they  (Lords  Holland  and 
Auckland)  felt  the  strongest  repugnance  to  a  formal  re- 
nunciation or  abandonment  of  their  claim  to  take  from  our 
vessels  on  the  high  seas  such  seamen  as  should  appear  to 
be  their  own  subjects."  And  such  was  the  answer,  from 
first  to  last,  to  every  attempt  to  come  to  a  formal  arrange- 
ment on  this  perplexing  subject.  Every  ministry  of  Great 
Britain,  however  diflferently  disposed  on  many  other  sub- 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  53 

jects,  on  this  thought  and  acted  alike.  With  all  the 
evidence  that  they  possessed  of  the  impracticability  of 
negotiating  successfully  on  this  topic,  Mr.  JeiFerson  made 
it  the  turning  point  of  all  his  efforts.  In  pursuance  of  this 
determination,  on  the  3d  of  February,  1807,  Mr.  Madison, 
secretary  of  state,  wrote  to  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney, 
and  after  having  alluded  to  the  matter  of  impressments, 
said — 

"  In  the  mean  time,  the  President  has,  with  all  those 
friendly  and  conciliatory  dispositions  which  produced  your 
mission,  and  pervade  your  instructions,  weighed  the  ar- 
rangement held  out  in  your  last  letter,  which  contemplates 
a  formal  adjustment  of  the  other  topics  under  discussion, 
and  an  informal  understanding  only  on  that  of  impress- 
ment. The  result  of  his  deliberations  which  I  am  now  to 
state  to  you,  is,  that  it  does  not  comport  with  his  views  of 
the  national  sentiment,  or  the  legislative  policy,  that  any 
treaty  should  be  entered  into  with  the  British  government 
which,  whilst  on  every  other  point  it  is  limited  to,  or  short 
of  strict  right,  would  include  no  article  providing  for  a  case 
which  both  in  principle  and  practice,  is  so  feelingly  con- 
nected with  the  honour  and  sovereignty  of  the  nation,  as 
well  as  with  its  fair  interests ;  and  indeed  with  the  peace 
of  both  nations."^ 

"  The  President  thinks  it  more  eligible,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, that  if  no  satisfactory  or  formal  stipulation  on 
the  subject  of  impressment  be  attainable,  the  negotiation 
jshould  be  made  to  terminate  without  any  formal  compact 
whatever." 

On  the  3d  of  January,  1807,  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pink- 
ney wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  saying — "  We  have  the 
honour  to  transmit  to  you  a  treaty,  which  we  concluded 
with  the  British  commissioners  on  the  31st  of  December. 
Although  we  had  entertained  great  confidence  from  the 
commencement  of  the  negotiation,  that  such  would  be  its 
result,  it  was  not  till  the  27th,  that  we  were  able  to  make 


54  HISTORY   OF   THE 

any  satisfactory  arrangement  of  several  of  the  most  im- 
portant points  that  were  involved  in  it.  A  large  proportion 
of  the  provisions  of  this  treaty^ — no  less  than  eleven  of  its 
articles — was  taken  from  that  o/1794."  After  giving  an 
account  of  the  various  articles,  those  gentlemen  say — 

"We  are  sorry  to  add  that  this  treaty  contains  no 
provision  against  the  impressment  of  our  seamen.  Our 
despatch  of  the  11th  of  November,  communicated  to  you 
the  result  of  our  labours  on  that  subject,  and  our  opinion 
that,  although  this  government  did  not  feel  itself  at  liberty 
to  relinquish,  formally  by  treaty,  its  claim  to  search  our 
merchant  vessels  for  British  seamen,  its  practice  would, 
nevertheless,  be  essentially,  if  not  completely  abandoned. 
That  opinion  has  been  since  confirmed  by  frequent  confe- 
rences on  the  subject  with  the  British  commissioners,  who 
have  repeatedly  assured  us,  that,  in  their  judgment,  we 
were  made  as  secure  against  the  exercise  of  their  preten- 
sion by  the  policy  which  their  government  had  adopted  in 
regard  to  that  very  delicate  and  important  question,  as  we 
could  have  been  made  by  treaty." 

This  treaty  was  received  at  Washington  the  beginning  of 
March,  1807,  but  was  never  even  submitted  to  the  Senate 
for  their  advice  and  consent  to  its  ratification.  On  the 
20th  of  May  following,  Mr.  Madison  wrote  to  Messrs. 
Monroe  and  Pinkney  on  the  subject.  The  following  is  an 
extract  from  his  letter  : — 

"  The  President  has  seen  in  your  exertions  to  accom- 
plish the  great  objects  of  your  instructions,  ample  proofs  of 
that  zeal  and  patriotism  in  which  he  confided ;  and  feels 
deep  regret  that  your  success  has  not  corresponded  with 
the  reasonableness  of  your  propositions,  and  the  ability 
with  which  they  were  supported.  He  laments  more  espe- 
cially that  the  British  government  has  not  yielded  to  the 
just  and  cogent  considerations  which  forbid  the  practice  of 
its  cruisers  in  visiting  and  impressing  the  crews  of  our  ves- 
sels, covered  by  an  independent  fiag,  and  guarded  by  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  55 

laws  of  the  high  seas,  which  ought  to  be  sacred  with  all 
nations. 

"  The  President  continues  to  regard  this  subject  in  the 
light  in  which  it  has  been  pressed  on  the  justice  and  friend- 
ship of  Great  Britain.     He  cannot  reconcile  it  with  his 
duty  to  our  sea-faring  citizens,  or  with  the  sensibility  or 
sovereignty  of  the  nation  to  recognise  even  constructively, 
a  principle  that  would  expose  on  the  high  seas  their  liberty, 
their  lives,  every  thing,  in  a  word,  that  is  dearest  to  the 
human  heart,  to  the  capricious  or  interested  sentences 
which  may  be  pronounced  against  their  allegiance  by  offi- 
cers of  a  foreign  government,  whom  neither  the  laws  of 
nations,  nor  even  the  laws  of  that  government,  will  allow 
to  decide  on  the  ownership  or  character  of  the  minutest 
article  of  property  found  in  a  like  situation." 
.A  |.Y,      f  *  It  is  considered,  moreover,  by  the  President,  the  more 
reasonable,    that   the   necessary  concession  in  this   case 
should  be  made  by  Great  Britain,  rather  than  by  the  United 
States,  on  the  double  consideration,  first,  that  a  concession 
on  our  part  would  violate  both  a  moral  and  political  duty    \ 
of  the  government  to  our  citizens,  which  would  not  be  the 
case  on  the  other  side  ;  secondly,  that  a  greater  number  of 
American  citizens,  than  of  British  subjects,  are  in  fact  im- 
pressed from  our  vessels  ;  and  that,  consequently  more  of 
wrong  is  done  to  the  United  States  than  of  right  to  Great 
Britain,  taking  even  her  own  claim  for  the  criterion. 

"  On  these  grounds,  the  President  is  constrained  to  de- 
cline any  arrangement,  formal  or  informal,  which  does  not 
comprise  a  provision  against  impressments  from  American 
vessels  on  the  high  seas,  and  which  would,  notwithstand- 
ing, be  a  bar  to  legislative  measures,  such  as  Congress 
have  thought,  or  may  think  proper  to  adopt  for  controlling 
that  species  of  aggression." 

"  That  you  may  the  more  fully  understand  his  impres- 
sions and  purposes,  I  will  explain  the  alterations  which  are 


56  HISTORY  OF  THE 

to  be  regarded  as  essential,  and  proceed  then  to  such  ob- 
servations on  the  several  articles  as  w^ill  show  the  other 
alterations  which  are  to  be  attempted,  and  the  degree  of 
importance  respectively  attached  to  them. 
.  **  Without  a  provision  against  impressments,  substantially 
\y  shch  as  is  contemplated  in  your  original  instructions,  no  treaty 
is  to  be  concluded" 

After  a  long  series  of  instructions,  and  remarks,  relative 
to  the  manner  of  conducting  the  negociation,  and  of  the 
concessions  that  may,  if  necessary,  be  made,  it  is  said — 

"  Should  the  concession,  (relating  to  the  employment  of 
seamen  belonging  to  the  respective  countries,)  contrary  to 
all  expectation,  not  succeed,  even  as  to  the  essential  ob- 
jects, the  course  prescribed  by  prudence  will  be  to  signify 
your  purpose  of  transmitting  ther  esult  to  your  government, 
avoiding  carefully  any  language  or  appearance  of  hostile 
anticipations  ;  and  receiving  and  transmitting,  at  the  same 
time,  any  overtures  which  may  be  made  on  the  other  side, 
with  a  view  to  bring  about  an  accommodation.  As  long 
as  negociation  can  be  honourably  protracted,  it  is  a  re- 
source to  be  preferred  under  existing  circumstances,  to  the 
peremptory  alternative  of  improper  concessions,  or  inevita- 
ble collisions." 

Thus,  it  is  apparent,  that  this  treaty  was  rejected  pri- 
marily on  the  ground,  that  no  arrangement  was  made  in 
it  to  prevent  the  impressment  of  seamen.  Of  the  impor- 
tance of  such  an  arrangement,  had  it  been  practicable, 
there  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion  among  the  inhabitants 
of  the  United  States.  But  when  it  was  perfectly  ascer- 
y  tained,  that  no  stipulations  on  that  subject  could  be  obtain- 
ed, that  every  successive  cabinet  in  England  had  agreed 
on  this  point,  and  the  question  only  remained  for  our  ad- 
ministration to  determine,  whether  all  the  relations  of  the 
two  nations,  and  impressments  with  them,  should  be  left 
in  a  loose,  undefined,  and  irritating  condition,  or  all  except 
that  should  be  satisfactorily  adjusted,  leaving  that  for  fu- 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  57 

ture  consideration,  no  reasonable  doubt  can  be  entertained 
that  the  latter  course  should  have  been  pursued.  It  will  be 
recollected  that  the  standing  reason  urged  by  Great  Bri- 
tain, against  yielding  the  principle  that  our  flag  should 
protect  the  crew  was,  that  she  was  struggling  against  the 
power  of  revolutionary  France  for  her  existence,  and  de- 
pended on  her  navy  for  her  safety  ;  and  that  under  such 
circumstances  she  could  not  admit  the  force  of  mere  ab- 
stract principles — self-preservation  being  with  her  the 
highest  object  of  consideration.  There  certainly  was  much 
force  in  this  objection  on  her  part,  to  treating  on  that  spe- 
cific point,  at  that  critical  period.  That  Mr.  Jefferson 
should  feel  differently  from  the  British  statesmen,  was 
perfectly  natural.  It  has  been  shown  that  his  governing 
principle  in  politics  was,  animosity  against  Great  Britain, 
and  attachment  to  France.  It  was  well  known,  that  from 
the  strong  national  resemblance  between  Britons  and 
Americans,  and  particularly  from  the  identity  of  language, 
great  difficulty  would  exist  in  distinguishing  between  Ame- 
rican citizens  and  British  subjects  ;  and  this  was  one  argu- 
ment strongly  urged  against  negotiation  on  this  subject. 
But  a  clue  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  feelings  towards  that  nation, 
may  be  discovered  in  his  works  published  since  his  death, 
beyond  the  passages  already  quoted.  The  following  is  a 
letter  to  William  B,  Giles  : — 

"  Monticello,  April  27,  1795. 
^i.  **■  Dear  Sir, — Your  favour  of  the  16th  came  to  hand  by 
the  last  post.  I  sincerely  congratulate  you  on  the  great 
prosperity  of  our  two  first  allies,  the  French  and  the 
Dutch.  If  I  could  but  see  them  now  at  peace  with  the 
rest  of  their  continent,  I  should  have  but  little  doubt  of 
dining  with  Pichegru  in  London  next  autumn  ;  for  I  believe 
I  should  be  tempted  to  leave  my  clover  for  awhile^  to  go  and 
hail  the  dawn  of  liberty  and  republicanism  in  that  island*^ ^ 

s 


58  HISTORY    OF   THE 

This  is  the  language  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  when  writing  to 
an  intimate  and  confidential  friend.  What  must  have 
been  the  principles  and  the  heart  of  the  man,  who,  from 
mere  political  feelings  and  resentments,  could  talk  with 
i  such  an  air  of  levity,  on  such  a  subject  ?  Wishing  to  dine 
^'  with  Pichegru  in  London,  necessarily  implied  a  wish  that 
he  might,  as  well  as  a  belief  that  he  would,  be  able  to 
invade,  overrun,  and  conquer  Great  Britain.;  That  is, 
because  the  people  of  that  nation  preferred  the  govern- 
ment under  which  they  lived,  and  which  had  been  the 
means  of  elevating  their  country  to  a  far  greater  height 
of  freedom,  prosperity,  power,  and  renown,  than  any  other 
European  nation  ever  enjoyed,  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  notions 
of  republicanism,  he  would  have  subjected  them  to  all  the 
miseries  and  horrors  of  an  invading  and  victorious  army, 
and  to  the  tremendous  consequences  which  must  necessa- 
rily follow  such  a  state  of  things,  in  such  a  country.  For- 
tunately for  Europe,  and  the  interests  of  the  civilized 
world,  he  was  disappointed  of  the  pleasure  to  be  derived 
from  such  a  festive  entertainment.  The  French  were  not 
able  to  conquer  Great  Britain,  and  of  course  Pichegru  had 
no  opportunity  of  inviting  his  republican  friends  in  other 
parts  of  the  world  to  dine  with  him  in  London,  and  to 
heighten  the  hilarity  of  the  entertainment,  by  witnessing 
the  pillage  and  butcheries  which  must  have  attended  a 
conquest  over  such  a  city. 

Mr.  Monroe,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  returned 
to  the  United  Slates.  As  might  have  been  expected,  he 
considered  himself  as  having  been  harshly  (^ealt  with  in 
V  relation  to  it.  On  the  IQth  of  March,  1808,  Mr.  Jefferson 
wrote  to  him  on  that  subject.  Among  other  things  he 
pays — 

"  You  complain  of  the  manner  in  which  the  treaty  was 
received.  But  what  was  that  manner  ?  I  cannot  suppose 
you  to  have  given  a  moment's  credit  to  the  stuff  which  was 
crowded  in  all  sorts  of  forms  into  the  public  papers,  or  to 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  59 

the  thousand  speeches  they  put  into  my  mouth,  not  a  word 
of  which  I  had  ever  uttered.  I  was  not  insensible  at  the 
time  of  the  views  to  mischief,  with  which  these  lies  were 
fabricated.  But  my  confidence  was  firm,  that  neither 
yourself  nor  the  British  government,  equally  outraged  by 
them,  would  believe  me  capable  of  making  the  editors  of 
newspapers  the  confidants  of  my  speeches  or  opinions. 
The  fact  was  this.  The  treaty  was  communicated  to  us 
by  Mr.  Erskine  on  the  day  Congress  was  to  rise.  Two  of 
the  senators  inquired  of  me  in  the  evening,  whether  it 
was  my  purpose  to  detain  them  on  account  of  the  treaty. 
My  answer  was,  '  that  it  was  not ;  that  the  treaty  contain- 
ing no  provision  against  the  impressment  of  our  seamen, 
and  being  accompanied  by  a  kind  of  protestation  of  the 
British  ministers,  which  would  leave  that  government  free 
to  consider  it  as  a  treaty  or  no  treaty,  according  to  their 
own  convenience,  I  should  not  give  them  the  trouble  of 
deliberating  on  it.'^  This  was  substantially,  and  almost 
verbally  what  I  said  whenever  spoken  to  about  it,  and  T 
never  failed  when  the  occasion  would  admit  of  it,  to  justify 
yourself  and  Mr.  Pinkney,  by  expressing  my  conviction, 
that  it  was  all  that  could  he  obtained  frovi  the  British  go- 
vernment;  that  you  had  told  their  commissioners  that  your 
government  could  not  be  pledged  to  ratify,  because  it  was 
contrary  to  their  instructions;  of  course,  that  it  should  be 
considered  but  as  a  project ;  and  in  this  light  1  stated  it 
publicly  in  my  message  to  congress  on  the  opening  of  the 
session." 

Some  time  after  his  return,  Mr.  Monroe  addressed  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  giving  a  detailed  account  of  the 
difl^iculties  which  the  commissioners  met  with  in  the  nego- 
tiations, the  light  in  which  he  viewed  various  provisions  in 
the  treaty,  and  the  sentiments  which  he  entertained  of  its 
general  character.  That  letter  was  dated  at  Richmond, 
Virginia,  February  23,  1808.  The  following  are  extracts 
from  it — 


60  HISTORY   OF   THE 

''  The  impressment  of  seamen  from  our  merchant  ves- 
sels is  a  topic  which  claims  a  primary  attention,  from  the 
order  which  it  holds  in  your  letter,  but  more  especially 
from  some  important  considerations  that  are  connected 
with  it.  The  idea  entertained  by  the  public  is,  that  the 
rights  of  the  United  States  were  abandoned  by  the  Ame- 
rican commissioners  in  the  late  negotiation,  and  that  their 
seamen  were  left  by  tacit  acquiescence,  if  not  by  formal 
renunciation,  to  depend,  for  their  safety,  on  the  mercy  of 
the  British  cruisers.  I  have,  on  the  contrary,  always  be- 
lieved, and  still  do  believe,  that  the  ground  on  which  that 
interest  was  placed  by  the  paper  of  the  British  commis- 
sioners of  November  8,  1806,  and  the  explanations  which 
accompanied  it,  was  both  honourable  and  advantageous  to 
the  United  States ;  that  it  contained  a  concession  in  their 
favour,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  great  principle 
in  contestation,  never  before  made  by  a  formal  and  obliga- 
tory act  of  the  government,  which  was  highly  favourable 
to  their  interest ;  and  that  it  also  imposed  on  her  the  obli- 
gation to  conform  her  practice  under  it,  till  a  more  com- 
plete arrangement  should  be  concluded,  to  the  just  claims 
of  the  United  States."  "  The  British  paper  states  that 
the  king  was  not  prepared  to  disclaim  or  derogate  from  a 
right  on  which  the  security  of  the  British  navy  might 
essentially  depend,  especially  in  a  conjuncture  when  he 
was  engaged  in  wars  which  enforced  the  necessity  of  the 
most  vigilant  attention  to  the  preservation  and  supply 
of  his  naval  force  ;  that  he  had  directed  his  commissioners 
to  give  to  the  commissioners  of  the  United  States  the  most 
positive  assurances  that  instructions  had  been  given,  and 
should  be  repeated  and  enforced,  to  observe  the  great- 
est caution  in  the  impressing  of  British  seamen,  to  pre- 
serve the  citizens  of  the  United  States  from  molestation 
or  injury,  and  that  immediate  and  prompt  redress  should 
be  afforded  on  any  representation  of  injury  sustained  by 
them.    It  then  proposes  to  postpone  the  article  relative  to 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  61 

impressment  on  account  of  the  difficulties  which  were  ex- 
perienced in  arranging  any  article  on  that  subject,  and  to 
proceed  to  conclude  a  treaty  on  the  other  points  that  were 
embraced  by  the  negotiation.  As  a  motive  to  such  post- 
ponement, and  the  condition  of  it,  it  assures  us  that  the 
British  commissioners  were  instructed  still  to  entertain  the 
discussion  of  any  plan  which  could  be  devised  to  secure 
the  interests  of  both  states  without  injury  to  the  rights  of 
either. 

"By  this  paper,  it  is  evident  that  the  rights  of  the 
United  States  were  expressly  to  be  reserved,  and  not 
abandoned,  as  has  been  most  erroneously  supposed ;  that 
the  negotiation  on  the  subject  of  impressment  was  to  be 
postponed  for  a  limited  time,  and  for  a  special  object  only, 
and  to  be  revived  as  soon  as  that  object  was  accomplished; 
and,  in  the  interim,  that  the  practice  of  impressment  was 
to  correspond  essentially  with  the  views  and  interests  of 
the  United  States.  It  is,  indeed,  evident,  from  a  correct 
view  of  the  contents  of  that  paper,  that  Great  Britain  re- 
fused to  disclaim  or  derogate  only  from  what  she  called  her 
right,  as  it  also  is,  that  as  her  refusal  was  made  applicable 
to  a  crisis  of  extraordinary  peril,  it  authorized  the  reason- 
able expectation,  if  not  the  just  claim,  that  even  in  that 
the  accommodation  desired  would  be  hereafter  yielded. 

"  In  our  letter  to  you  of  November  11,  which  accom- 
panied the  paper  under  consideration,  and  in  that  of 
January  3,  which  was  forwarded  with  the  treaty,  these 
gentiments  were  fully  confirmed.  In  that  of  November 
11,  we  communicated  one  important  fact,  which  left  no 
doubt  of  the  sense  in  which  it  was  intended  by  the  British 
commissioners  that  that  paper  should  be  construed  by  us. 
In  calling  your  attention  to  the  passage  which  treats  of 
impressment,  in  reference  to  the  practice  which  should  be 
observed  in  future,  we  remarked  that  the  terms  "  high 
seas"  were  not  mentioned  in  it,  and  added  that  we  knew 
that  the  omission  had  been  intentional.    It  was  impossible 


62  HISTORY  OP  THE 

that  those  terms  could  have  been  omitted  intentionally 
with  our  knowledge,  for  any  purpose  other  than  to  admit  a 
construction  that  it  was  intended  that  impressments  should 
be  confined  to  the  land.  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  it 
was  understood  between  the  British  commissioners  and 
us,  that  Great  Britain  should  abandon  the  practice  of  im- 
pressment on  the  high  seas  altogether.  I  mean,  however, 
distinctly  to  state,  that  it  was  understood  that  the  practice 
heretofore  pursued  by  her  should  be  abandoned,  and  that 
no  impressment  should  be  made  on  the  high  seas  under  the 
obligation  of  that  paper,  except  in  cases  of  an  extraordi- 
nary nature,  to  which  no  general  prohibition  against  it 
could  be  construed  fairly  to  extend.  The  cases  to  which  I 
allude  were  described  in  our  letter  of  November  11.  They 
suppose,  a  British  ship  of  war  and  a  merchant  vessel  of 
the  United  States,  lying  in  the  Tagus  or  some  other  port, 
the  desertion  of  some  of  the  sailors  from  the  ship  of  war 
to  the  merchant  vessel,  and  the  sailing  of  the  latter  with 
such  deserters  on  board,  they  being  British  subjects.  It 
was  admitted  that  no  general  prohibition  against  impress- 
ment could  be  construed  to  sanction  such  cases  of  injustice 
and  fraud ;  and  to  such  cases  it  was  understood  that  the 
practice  should  in  future  be  confined. 

"  It  is  a  just  claim  on  our  part,  that  the  explanations 
which  were  given  of  that  paper  by  the  British  commis- 
sioners when  they  presented  it  to  us,  and  afterwards  while 
the  negotiation  was  depending,  which  we  communicated 
to  you  in  due  order  of  time,  should  be  taken  into  view,  in 
a  fair  estimate  of  our  conduct  in  that  transaction.  As  the 
arrangement  which  they  proposed  was  of  an  informal 
nature,  resting  on  an  understanding  between  the  parties 
in  a  certain  degree  confidential,  it  could  not  otherwise  than 
happen  that  such  explanations  would  be  given  us  in  the 
course  of  the  business,  of  the  views  of  their  government  in 
regard  to  it.  And  if  an  arrangement  by  informal  under- 
standing is  admissible  in  any  case  between  nations,  it  was 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  63 

our  duty  to  receive  those  explanations,  to  give  them  the 
weight  to  which  they  were  justly  entitled,  and  to  communi- 
cate them  to  you,  with  our  impression  of  the  extent  of  the 
obligation  which  they  imposed.  It  is  in  that  mode  only 
that  what  is  called  an  informal  understanding  between  na- 
tions can  be  entered  into.  It  presumes  a  want  of  precision 
in  the  written  documents  connected  with  it,  which  is  sup- 
plied by  mutual  explanations  and  confidence.  Reduce  the 
transaction  to  form,  and  it  becomes  a  treaty.  That  an 
informal  understanding  was  an  admissible  mode  of  arrang- 
ing this  interest  with  Great  Britain,  is  made  sufficiently 
evident  by  your  letter  of  February  3, 1807,  in  reply  to  ours 
of  November  11,  of  the  preceding  year. 

**  Without  relying,  however,  on  the  explanations  that 
were  giv^en  by  the  British  commissioners  of  the  import  of 
that  paper,  or  of  the  course  which  their  government  in- 
tended to  pursue  under  it,  it  is  fair  to  remark  on  the  paper 
itself,  that  as  by  it  the  rights  of  the  parties  were  reserved, 
and  the  negotiation  might  be  continued  on  this  particular 
topic,  after  a  treaty  should  be  formed  on  the  others.  Great 
Britain  was  bound  not  to  trespass  on  those  rights  vvhile 
that  negotiation  was  depending ;  and  in  case  she  did  tres- 
pass on  them,  in  any  the  slightest  degree,  the  United 
States  would  be  justified  in  breaking  off  the  negotiation, 
and  appealing  to  force  in  vindication  of  their  rights.  The 
mere  circumstance  of  entertaining  an  amicable  negotiation 
•  by  one  party  for  the  adjustment  of  a  controversy,  where  no 
right  had  been  acknowledged  in  it  by  the  other,  gives  to 
the  latter  a  just  claim  to  such  a  forbearance  on  the  part  of 
the  former.  But  the  entertainment  of  a  negotiation  for 
the  express  purpose  of  securing  interests  sanctioned  by 
acknowledged  rights,  makes  such  claim  irresistible.  We 
were,  therefore,  decidedly  of  opinion,  that  the  paper  of  the 
British  commissioners  placed  the  interest  of  impressment 
on  ground  which  it  was  both  safe  and  honourable  for  the 
United  States  to  admit :  that  in  short  it  gave  their  govern- 


64  HISTORY    OF   THE 

ment  the  command  of  the  subject  for  every  necessary  and 
useful  purpose.  Attached  to  the  treaty,  it  was  the  basis  or 
condition  on  which  the  treaty  rested.  Strong  in  its  character 
in  their  favour  on  the  great  question  of  right,  and  admitting 
a  favourable  construction  on  others,  it  placed  them  on  more 
elevated  ground  in  those  respects  than  they  had  held 
before;  and  by  keeping  the  negotiation  open  to  obtain  a 
more  complete  adjustment,  the  administration  was  armed 
with  the  most  effectual  means  of  securing  it.  By  this 
arrangement  the  government  possessed  a  power  to  coerce 
without  being  compelled  to  assume  the  character  belonging 
to  coercion,  and  it  was  able  to  give  effect  to  that  power 
without  violating  the  relations  of  amity  between  the  coun- 
tries. The  right  to  break  off  the  negotiation  and  appeal 
to  force,  could  never  be  lost  sight  of  in  any  discussion  on 
the  subject;  while  there  was  no  obligation  to  make  that 
appeal  till  necessity  compelled  it.  If  Great  Britain  con- 
formed her  practice  to  the  rule  prescribed  by  the  paper  of 
November  8,  and  the  explanations  which  accompanied  it, 
our  government  might  rest  on  that  ground  with  advantage ; 
but  if  she  departed  from  that  rule,  and  a  favourable 
opportunity  offered  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  more 
complete  and  satisfactory  arrangement,  by  a  decisive  effort, 
it  would  be  at  liberty  to  seize  such  opportunity  for  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  country." 

^  Large  quotations  have  been  made  from  this  important 
document,  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of  showing  tli« 
grounds  on  which  the  United  States  commissioners  acted 
in  forming  and  concluding  the  treaty,  but  with  the  view  of 
establishing  the  proposition,  that  Mr.  Jefferson  had  no 
sincere  disposition  fully  and  finally  to  adjust  the  sources 
of  uneasiness  and  irritation  between  this  country  and  Great 
Britain.  It  will  be  recollected,  that  the  great  reason  for 
rejecting  this  treaty,  without  even  submitting  it  to  the 
Senate,  who  were  in  session  when  it  was  received,  was, 
that  it  contained  no  article  providing  against  impressment. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  6$ 

The  other  important  subjects  of  negotiation  were  adjusted 
in  it;  and  had  the  treaty  been  ratified,  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  the  war  of  1812  might  have  been  avoided. 
And  there  is  too  much  reason  to  believe,  that  it  was  from 
an  apprehension  that  the  Senate  might  have  advised  to 
its  ratification,  that  their  opinion  on  the  subject  was  not 
requested.  It  was,  however,  rejected,  for  the  reason  prin- 
cipally that  there  was  no  positive  provision  against  im- 
pressment, under  a  full  knowledge  that  no  such  provision 
could  be  obtained  ;  but,  at  the  same  time  with  an  informal 
understanding,  as  appears  by  Mr.  Monroe's  letter,  that  the 
practice  should  be  avoided.  The  right  they  would  not  dis- 
claim ;  but  they  would  essentially  abstain  from  its  exercise. 

Had  the  interests  of  the  country  alone  been  consulted, 
if  there  had  not  been  something  else  in  view,  it  is  difficult 
to  imagine  any  good  reason  for  refusing  to  adjust  all  the 
subjects  of  dispute  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain, 
except  one.  If  every  thing  had  been  concluded  except 
impressment,  the  United  States  would  have  been  placed  in 
no  worse  situation  as  it  regarded  that.  On  the  contrary, 
their  condition  would  have  been  more  favourable,  both  in 
relation  to  the  practice,  and  to  future  negotiation.  Be- 
sides, even  that  matter,  by  the  informal  understanding  be- 
tween the  British  government  and  Messrs.  Monroe  and 
Pinckney,  was  much  more  eligibly  disposed  of,  than  it  could 
have  been  if  left  in  the  situation  in  which  it  had  previously 
stood.  That  it  would  have  been  no  worse  for  the  United 
States,  is  most  decisively  proved  by  the  fact,  that  from  that 
day  to  this,  no  arrangement,  formal  nor  informal,  against 
impressment,  has  been  made  with  Great  Britain ;  nor,  on 
other  points  of  difference,  have  there  ever  been  more  ad- 
vantageous terms  obtained  for  the  United  States  than 
were  then  oflfered  and  rejected. 

In  June,  1807,  the  attack  of  the  British  frigate  Leopard,        / 
uUn  the  United  States  frigate   Chesapeake,   occurred.  |  ^ 


66  HISTORY   OF   THE 

The  first  information  which  Mr,  Monroe,  our  minister  at 
London,  received  of  this  transaction,  was  through  a  note 
from  Mr.  Canning,  dated  July  25th,  1807.  On  the  29th 
of  July  Mr.  Monroe  addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  Canning, 
calling  his  attention  to  this  aggression  on  the  sovereignty 
of  the  United  States  ;  and  after  having  stated  the  case,  -he 
remarked — "  I  might  state  other  examples  of  great  indig- 
nity and  outrage,  many  of  which  are  of  recent  date,  to 
which  the  United  States  have  been  exposed  off  their  coast, 
and  even  within  several  of  their  harbours,  from  the  British 
squadron ;  but  it  is  improper  to  mingle  them  with  the  pre- 
sent more  serious  cause  of  complaint ;"  and  he  concluded 
his  letter  by  saying — ''  I  have  called  your  attention  to  this 
subject,  in  full  confidence  that  his  majesty's  government 
will  see,  in  the  act  complained  of,  a  flagrant  abu&e  of  its 
own  authority,  and  that  it  will  not  hesitate  to  enable  me 
to  communicate  to  my  government,  without  delay,  a  frank 
disavowal  of  the  principle  on  which  it  was  made,  and  its 
assurance  that  the  officer  who  is  responsible  for  it — shall 
suffer  the  punishment  which  so  unexampled  an  aggression 
on  the  sovereignty  of  a  neutral  nation  justly  deserves." 

This  letter  was  answered  by  Mr.  Canning  on  the  3d  of 
August.  After  noticing  the  general  sul^ject  of  Mr.  Mon- 
roe's note  he  remarks — "  If,  therefore,  the  statement  in 
your  note  should  prove  to  be  correct,  and  to  contain  all  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  upon  which  complaint  is  intend- 
ed to  be  made,  and  if  it  shall  appear  that  the  act  of  his 
majesty's  officers  rested  on  no  other  grounds  than  the  sim- 
ple and  unqualified  assertion  of  the  pretension  above  refer- 
red to,  his  majesty  has  no  difliculty  in  disowning  that  act, 
and  will  have  no  difficulty  in  manifesting  his  displeasure 
at  the  conduct  of  his  officers. 

"  With  respect  to  the  other  causes  of  complactnt  [whatever 
they  may  be]  which  are  hinted  at  in  your  note,  I  perfectly 
agree  with  you,  in  the  sentiment  which  you  express,  as  to 
the  propriety  of  not  involving  them  in  a  question  which  is 


^ 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  67 

of  itself  of  sufficient  importance  to  claim  a  separate  and 

>st  serious  consideration." 

.^On  the  2d  of  July,  Mr.  Jefferson,  President  of  the 
United  States,  issued  a  proclamation  requiring  all  armed 
vessels  belonging  to  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  then  in  the 
ports  or  harbours  of  the  United  States,  immediately  to  de- 
part therefrom,  and  interdicting  their  entrance  into  those 
ports  and  harbours./  Mr.  Canning  having  received  from 
the  British  minister  an  unofficial  copy  of  this  document,  im- 
mediately, upon  the  8th  of  August,  wrote  to  Mr.  Monroe, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  it  was  genuine,  or 
not,  and  received  for  answer,  on  the  9th,  that  Mr.  Monroe 
had  not  heard  from  his  government  on  the  subject ;  but 
expected,  in  a  few  days  to  be  instructed  to  make  a  com- 
munication to  the  British  government  in  regard  to  it.  On 
the  7th  of  September,  Mr.  Monroe  made  a  long  commu- 
nication to  Mr.  Canning  respecting  the  attack  on  the  Che- 
sapeake. On  the  23d  of  September  Mr.  Canning  replied, 
and  in  the  commencement  of  his  note  made  the  following 
remarks — "  Before  I  proceed  to  observe  upon  that  part  of 
it  which  relates  more  immediately  to  the  question  now  at 
issue  between  our  two  governments,  I  am  commanded,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  express  the  surprise  which  is  felt  at 
the  total  omission  of  a  subject  upon  which  I  had  already 
been  commanded  to  apply  to  you  for  information,  the  pro- 
clamation purported  to  have  been  issued  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States.  Of  this  paper,  when  last  I  addressed 
you  upon  it,  you  professed  not  to  have  any  knowledge  be- 
yond what  the  ordinary  channels  of  public  information  af- 
forded, nor  any  authority  to  declare  it  to  be  authentic.  I 
feel  it  an  indispensable  duty  to  renew  my  inquiry  on  this 
subject.  The  answer  which  I  may  receive  from  you  is  by 
no  means  unimportant  to  the  settlement  of  the  discussion 
which  has  arisen  from  the  encounter  between  the  Leopard 
and  the  Chesapeake. 

"  The  whole  of  the  question  arising  out  of  that  transac- 


68  HISTORY    OF   THE 

tion,  is  in  fact  no  other  than  a  question  as  to  the  amount  of 
reparation  due  by  his  majesty  for  the  unauthorized  act  of  his 
officer :  and  you  will,  therefore,  readily  perceive  that,  in 
so  far  as  the  government  of  the  United  States  have  thought 
proper  to  take  that  reparation  into  their  own  hands,  and  to 
resort  to  measures  of  retaliation  previously  to  any  direct 
application  to  the  British  government,  or  to  the  British 
minister  in  America  for  redress,  in  so  far  the  British  go- 
vernment is  entitled  to  take  such  measures  into  account^ 
and  to  consider  them  in  the  estimate  of  reparation  which 
is  acknowledged  to  have  been  originally  due. 
\  "  The  total  exclusion  of  all  ships  of  war  belonging  to  one 
oi  the  two  belligerent  parties,  while  the  ships  of  war  of  the 
other  were  protected  by  the  harbours  of  the  neutral  power, 
would  furnish  no  light  ground  of  complaint  against  that 
neutral,  if  considered  in  any  other  point  of  view  than  as  a 
measure  of  retaliation  for  a  prerious  injury  :  and  so  consi- 
dered, it  cannot  but  be  necessary  to  take  it  into  account  in 
the  adjustment  of  the  original  dispute.] 

*'  I  am,  therefore,  distinctly  to  repeat  the  inquiry,  whe- 
ther you  are  now  enabled  to  declare,  sir,  that  the  procla- 
mation is  to  be  considered  as  the  authentic  act  of  your  go- 
vernment ?  and,  if  so,  I  am  further  to  inquire  whether  you 
are  authorized  to  notify  the  intention  of  your  government  to 
withdraw  that  proclamation,  on  the  knowledge  of  his  majes- 
ty's disavowal  of  the  act  which  occasioned  its  publication  ?'* 

After  a  long  series  of  remarks  and  reasoning  on  the 
subject  of  impressment,  and  the  difficulties  attending  a 
modification  of  the  practice,  Mr.  Canning  says — "  Whe- 
ther any  arrangement  can  be  devised,  by  which  this  prac- 
tice may  admit  of  modification,  without  prejudice  to  the 
essential  rights  and  interests  of  Great  Britain,  is  a  ques- 
tion, which*,  as  I  have  already  said,  the  British  govern- 
ment may,  at  a  proper  season,  be  ready  to  entertain ;  but, 
whether  the  consent  of  Great  Britain  to  the  entering  into 
such  a  discussion,  shall  be  extorted  as  the  price  of  an  ami- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  69 

cable  adjustment,  as  the  condition  of  being  admitted  to 
make  honourable  reparation  for  an  injury,  is  a  question 
of  quite  a  different  sort,  and  one  which  can  be  answered 
no  otherwise  than  by  an  unqualified  refusal. 

**  I  earnestly  recommend  to  you,  therefore,  to  consider, 
whether  the  instructions  which  you  have  received  from 
your  government  may  not  leave  you  at  liberty  to  come  to 
an  adjustment  of  the  case  of  the  Leopard  and  the  Chesa- 
peake, independently  of  the  other  question,  with  which  it 
appears  to  have  been  unnecessarily  connected. 

"  If  your  instructions  leave  you  no  discretion,  I  cannot 
press  you  to  act  in  contradiction  to  them.  In  that  case 
there  can  be  no  advantage  in  pursuing  a  discussion  which 
you  are  not  authorized  to  conclude ;  and  I  shall  have  only 
to  regret,  that  the  disposition  of  his  majesty  to  terminate 
that  difference  amicably  and  satisfactorily,  is  for  the  pre- 
sent rendered  unavailing. 

"  In  that  case,  his  majesty,  in  pursuance  of  the  disposi- 
tion of  which  he  has  given  such  signal  proofs,  will  lose  no 
time  in  sending  a  minister  to  America,  furnished  with  the 
necessary  instructions  and  powers  for  bringing  this  unfor- 
tunate dispute  to  a  conclusion,  consistent  with  the  harmony 
subsisting  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 
But,  in  order  to  avoid  the  inconvenience  which  has  arisen, 
from  the  mixt  nature  of  your  instructions,  that  minister  will 
not  be  empowered  to  entertain,  as  connected  with  this 
subject,  any  proposition  respecting  the  search  of  merchant 
vessels." 

On  the  29th  of  September  Mr.  Monroe  wrote  a  long 
answer  to  Mr.  Canning's  letter,  in  which,  among  other 
things,  he  says — "  You  inform  me,  that  his  majesty  has 
determined,  in  case  my  instructions  do  not  permit  me  to 
separate  the  late  aggression  from  the  general  practice  of 
impressment,  to  transfer  the  business  to  the  United  States, 
by  committing  it  to  a  minister  who  shall  be  sent  there 
with  full  powers  to  conclude  it.  To  that  measure  I  am  far 


70  HISTORY    OF   THE 

from  being  disposed  to  raise  any  obstacle,  and  shall  imme- 
diately apprise  my  government  of  the  decision  to  adopt  it." 
In  a  short  time  after  the  date  of  the  letter  from  which 
the  quotation  immediately  preceding  was  taken,  the  fol- 
lowing note  was  addressed  to  Mr.  Canning  by  Mr.  Monroe. 

"  Portland  Place,  October  Q,  1807. 

"  To  Mr.  Canning, 

**  Mr.  Monroe  presents  his  compliments  to  Mr.  Canning, 
and  requests  that  he  will  be  so  good  as  to  inform  him, 
whether  it  is  intended,  that  the  minister,  whom  his  majesty 
proposes  to  send  to  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
shall  be  employed  in  a  special  mission  without  having  any 
connection  immediate  or  eventual  with  the  ordinary  lega- 
tion. Mr.  Monroe  has  inferred  from  Mr.  Canning's  note, 
that  the  mission  will  be  of  the  special  nature  above  de- 
scribed, but  he  will  be  much  obliged  to  Mr.  C|inning  to 
inform  him  whether  he  has  taken  a  correct  view  of  the 
measure.  Mr.  Monroe  would  also  be  happy  to  know  of 
Mr.  Canning  at  what  time  it  is  expected  the  minister  will 
sail  for  the  United  States.  Mr.  Canning  will  be  sensible 
that  Mr.  Monroe's  motive  in  requesting  this  information 
is,  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  communicate  it  without  delay 
to  his  government,  the  propriety  of  which,  he  is  persuaded, 
Mr.  Canning  will  readily  admit." 

"  Foreign  Office,  October  10,  1807. 

**  From  Mr.  Canning, 

•*  Mr.  Canning  presents  his  compliments  to  Mr.  Monroe, 
and  in  acknowledging  the  honour  of  his  note  of  yesterday, 
has  great  pleasure  in  assuring  him  that  he  is  at  all  times 
ready  to  answer  any  inquiries  to  which  Mr.  Monroe  at- 
taches any  importance,  and  which  it  is  in  Mr.  Canning's 
power  to  answer  with  precision,  without  public  inconve- 
nience. But  it  is  not  in  Mr.  Canning's  power  to  state  with 
confidence  what  may  be  the  eventual  determination  of  his 


*cJ    ^^-^   -      ^^    HARTFORD   CONVENTION./-^ 

^  ^    ,^  ^  -^     ,    /  >:■  >■■■■ 

majesty  in  respect  to  the  permanent  mission  in  America. 
The  mission  of  the  minister  whom  his  majesty  is  now 
about  to  send  will  certainly  be  limited  in  the  first  instance 
to  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  Chesapeake." 

(After  Mr.  Rose's  arrival  at  Washington,  he  addressed 
a  lietter  to  Mr.  Madison,  then  Secretary  of  State,  dated  / 
January  26,  1808,  from  which  the  following  passages  are 
copied  : 

"  Having  had  the  honour  to  state  to  you,  that  I  am  ex- 
pressly precluded  by  my  instructions  from  entering  upon 
any  negotiation  for  the  adjustment  of  the  differences  arising 
from  the  encounter  of  his  majesty's  ship  Leopard  and  the 
frigate  of  the  United  States,  the  Chesapeake,  as  long  as 
the  proclamation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  of 
the  2d  of  July,  1807,  shall  be  in  force,  I  beg  leave  to  offer 
you  such  farther  explanation  of  the  nature  of  that  condi- 
tion, as  appears  to  me  calculated  to  place  the  motives, 
under  which  it  has  been  enjoined  to  me  thus  to  bring  it 
forward,  in  their  true  light." 

After  a  series  of  remarks,  he  says — "  I  may  add,  that 
if  his  majesty  has  not  commanded  me  to  enter  into  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  other  causes  of  complaint,  stated  to  arise 
from  the  conduct  of  his  naval  commanders  in  these  seas, 
prior  to  the  encounter  of  the  Leopard  and  Chesapeake,  it 
was  because  it  has  been  deemed  improper  to  mingle  them, 
whatever  may  be  their  merits,  with  the  present  matter,  so 
much  more  interesting  and  important  in  its  nature  ;  an  opi- 
nion originally  and  distinctly  expressed  by  Mr.  Monroe,  and 
assented  to  by  Mr.  Secretary  Canning.  But  if,  upon  this  more 
recent  and  more  weighty  matter  of  discussion,  upon  which 
the  proclamation  mainly  and  materially  rests,  his  majesty's 
amicable  intentions  are  unequivocally  evinced,  it  is  suffi-  , 
ciently  clear,  that  no  hostile  disposition  can  be  supposed 
to  exist  on  his  part,  nor  can  any  views  be  attributed  to  his 
government,  such  as,  requiring  to  be  counteracted  by  mea- 


72  HISTORY   OF   THE 

sures  of  precaution,  could  be  deduced  from  transactions 
which  preceded  that  encounter." 

To  this  Mr.  Madison  replied  in  a  long  letter,  dated 
March  5,  in  which  he  goes  into  a  review  of  all  the  causes 
of  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  against  the 
British  Government,  arising  from  the  conduct  of  the  naval 
officers  of  that  kingdom  ;  coming  down  in  regular  course 
to  the  attack  upon  the  Chesapeake  by  the  Leopard ;  and 
saying — ^that  "it  is  sufficient  to  remark,  that  the  conclu- 
sive evidence  which  this  event  added  to  that  which  had 
preceded,  of  the  uncontrolled  excesses  of  the  British  naval 
commanders,  in  insulting  our  sovereignty,  and  abusing  our 
hospitality,  determined  the  President  to  extend  to  all 
British  armed  ships  the  precaution  heretofore  applied  to  a 
few  by  name,  of  interdicting  to  them  the  use  and  privileges 
of  our  harbours  and  waters." 

"  The  President,  having  interposed  this  precautionary 
interdict,  lost  no  time  in  instructing  the  minister  plenipo- 
tentiary of  the  United  States  to  represent  to  the  British 
government  the  signal  aggression  which  had  been  com- 
mitted on  their  sovereignty  and  their  flag,  and  to  require 
the  satisfaction  due  for  it ;  indulging  the  expectation,  that 
his  Britannic  majesty  would  at  once  perceive  it  to  be  the 
truest  magnanimity,  as  well  as  the  strictest  justice,  to 
offer  that  prompt  and  full  expiation  of  an  acknowledged 
wrong,  which  would  re-establish  and  improve,  both  in  fact 
and  in  feeling,  the  state  of  things  which  it  had  violated." 
The  Secretary  of  State  finally  comes  to  the  point  between 
him  and  Mr.  Rose,  the  revocation  of  the  proclamation — 
"  The  proclamation  [he  says]  is  considered  as  a  hostile 
measure,  and  a  discontinuance  of  it,  as  due  to  the  dis- 
continuance of  the  aggression  which  led  tj3  it. 

It  has  been  sufficiently  shown  that  the  proclamation,  as 
appears  on  the  face  of  it,  was  produced  by  a  train  of 
occurrences  terminating  in  the  attack  on  the  American 
frigate,  and  not  by  this  last  alone.     To  a  demand,  there- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  73 

tore,  that  the  proclamation  be  revoked,  it  would  be  per- 
fectly fair  to  oppose  a  demand,  that  redress  be  first  given 
for  the  numerous  irregularities  which  preceded  the  aggres- 
sion on  the  American  frigate,  as  well  as  for  this  particular 
aggression,  and  that  effectual  controul  be  interposed  against 
repetitions  of  them.  And  as  no  such  redress  has  been 
given  for  the  past,  notwithstanding  the  lapse  of  time  which 
has  taken  place,  nor  any  such  security  for  the  future, 
notwithstanding  the  undiminished  reasonableness  of  it,  it 
follows  that  a  continuance  of  the  proclamation  would  be 
consistent  with  an  entire  discontinuance  of  one  only  of  the 
occurrences  from  which  it  proceeded.  But  it  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  avail  the  argument  of  this  view  of  the  case, 
although  of  itself  entirely  conclusive.  Had  the  proclama- 
tion been  founded  on  the  single  aggression  committed  on 
the  Chesapeake,  and  were  it  admitted,  that  the  discontinu- 
ance of  that  aggression  merely  gave  a  claim  to  the  discon- 
tinuance of  the  proclamation,  the  claim  would  be  defeated 
by  the  incontestible  fact,  that  that  aggression  has  not  been 
discontinued.  It  has  never  ceased  to  exist ;  and  is  in  ex- 
istence at  this  moment.  Need  I  remind  you.  Sir,  that  the 
seizure  and  asportation  of  the  seamen  belonging  to  the  crew 
of  the  Chesapeake  entered  into  the  very  essence  of  that 
aggression,  that,  with  an  exception  of  the  victim  to  a  trial, 
forbidden  by  the  most  solemn  considerations,  and  greatly 
aggravating  the  guilt  of  its  author,  the  seamen  in  question 
are  still  retained,  and  consequently  that  the  aggression,  if  in 
no  other  respect,  is  by  that  act  alone  continued  and  in  force. 
"  If  the  views  which  have  been  taken  of  the  subject  have 
the  justness  which  they  claim,  they  will  have  shown  that 
on  no  ground  whatever  can  an  annulment  of  the  procla- 
mation of  July  2d  be  reasonably  required,  as  a  preliminary 
to  the  negotiation  with  which  you  are  charged.  On  the 
contrary,  it  clearly  results,  from  a  recurrence  to  the  causes 
and  objects  of  the  proclamation,  that,  as  was  at  first 
intimated,  the  strongest  sanctions  of  Great  Britain  herself 

10 


74  HISTORY  OF  THE 

would  support  the  demand,  that,  previous  to  a  discussion 
of  the  proclamation,  due  satisfaction  should  be  made  to  the 
United  States ;  that  this  satisfaction  ought  to  extend  to  all 
the  wrongs  which  preceded  and  produced  that  act ;  and 
that  even  limiting  the  merits  of  the  question  to  the  single 
relation  of  the  proclamation  to  the  wrong  committed  in  the 
attack  on  the  American  frigate,  and  deciding  the  question 
on  the  principle  that  a  discontinuance  of  the  latter  required 
of  right  a  discontinuance  of  the  former,  nothing  appears 
that  does  not  leave  such  a  preliminary  destitute  of  every 
foundation  which  could  be  assumed  for  it. 

"  With  a  right  to  draw  this  conclusion,  the  President 
might  have  instructed  me  to  close  this  communication  with 
the  reply  stated  in  the  beginning  of  it;  and  perhaps  in 
taking  this  course,  he  would  only  have  consulted  a  sensi- 
bility, to  which  most  governments  would,  in  such  a  case^ 
have  yielded.  But  adhering  to  the  moderation  by  which 
he  has  been  invariably  guided,  and  anxious  to  rescue  the 
two  nations  from  the  circumstances  under  which  an  abor- 
tive issue  to  your  mission  necessarily  places  them,  he  has 
authorized  me,  in  the  event  of  your  disclosing  the  terms 
of  reparation  which  you  believe  will  be  satisfactory,  and 
on  its  appearing  that  they  are  so,  to  consider  this  evidence 
of  the  justice  of  his  Britannic  majesty  as  a  pledge  for 
an  effectual  interposition  with  respect  to  all  the  abuses 
against  a  recurrence  of  which  the  proclamation  was  meant 
to  provide,  and  to  proceed  to  concert  with  you  a  revocation 
of  that  act,  bearing  the  same  date  with  the  act  of  repara- 
tion, to  which  the  United  States  are  entitled. 

*'  I  am  not  unaware,  sir,  that  according  to  the  view  which 
you  appear  to  have  taken  of  your  instructions,  such  a  course 
of  proceeding  has  not  been  contemplated  hy  them.  It  is  pos- 
sible, nevertheless,  that  a  re-examination,  in  a  spirit,  in 
which  I  am  well  pursuaded  it  will  be  made,  may  discover 
them  to  be  not  inflexible  to  a  proposition  in  so  high  a  de- 
gree liberal  and  conciliatory.     In  every  event,  the  Presi- 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  75 

dent  will  have  manifested  his  willingness  to  meet  your 
government  on  a  ground  of  accommodation,  which  spares 
to  its  feelings,  however  misapplied  he  may  deem  them, 
every  concession,  not  essentially  due  to  those  which  must 
be  equally  respected,  and  consequently  will  have  demon- 
strated that  the  very  ineligible  posture  given  to  so  impor- 
tant a  subject  in  the  relations  of  the  two  countries,  by  the 
unsuccessful  termination  of  your  mission,  can  be  referred 
to  no  other  source  than  the  rigorous  restrictions  under 
which  it  was  to  be  executed." 

On  the  17th  of  March,  Mr.  Rose  replied  to  the  foregoing 
communication,  informing  Mr.  Madison  that  he  was  "  under 
the  necessity  of  declining  to  enter  into  the  terms  of  nego- 
tiation, which,  by  direction  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,"  Mr.  Madison  had  offered ;  and  saying,  *'  I  do  not 
feel  myself  competent,  in  the  present  instance,  to  depart 
from  the  instructions,  which  I  stated  in  my  letter  of  the 
26th  of  January  last,  and  which  preclude  me  from  acceding 
to  the  condition  thus  proposed."  He  then  proceeds  further 
apd  says — 

;  "I  should  add,  that  I  am  absolutely  prohibited  from 
entering  upon  matters  unconnected  with  the  specifick 
object  I  am  authorized  to  discuss,  much  less  can  I  thus 
give  any  pledge  concerning  them.  The  condition  suggested, 
moreover,  leads  to  the  direct  inference,  that  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  the  2d  of  July, 
1807,  is  maintained  either  as  an  equivalent  for  reparation  I 
for  the  time  being,  or  as  a  compulsion  to  make  it. 

"  It  is  with  the  more  profound  regret  that  I  feel  myself 
under  the  necessity  of  declaring,  that  I  am  unable  to  act 
upon  the  terms  thus  proposed,  as  it  becomes  my  duty  to 
inform  you,  in  conformity  to  my  instructions,  that  on  the 
rejection  of  the  demand  stated  in  my  former  letter,  on  the 
part  of  his  majesty,  my  mission  is  terminated." 

Thus  another  opportunity  to  adjust  at  least  one,  and 
perhaps  several  important  subjects  of  dispute  and  com- 


76  HISTORY    OF   THE 

plaint  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  was 
lost,  in  consequence  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  refusing  to  yield  a 
mere  point  of  etiquette,  respecting  the  recal  of  the  procla- 
mation which  he  had  issued,  to  say  the  least,  precipitately, 
and  which  he  was  forewarned  by  the  British  government, 
would  prevent  an  adjustment  of  the  affair  of  the  frigate 
Chesapeake,  if  continued  in  force.  It  is  not  to  be  believed, 
if  he  had  been  sincerely  desirous  of  establishing  a  solid  and 
permanent  friendship  (political  friendship  is  here  meant) 
between  the  two  nations,  that  he  would  have  failed  of 
accomplishing  that  object  on  such  slender  a  pretext  as  that 
which  put  an  end  to  Mr.  Rose's  mission. 

That  he  did  not  entertain  such  a  wish  is  evident,  not 
only  from  the  manner  in  which  the  negotiation  with  Mr. 
Rose  was  conducted,  and  the  grounds  on  which  it  was 
concluded ;  but  from  the  circumstance,  that  a  direct  at- 
tempt was  made  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  corres- 
pondence with  him,  to  induce  Mr.  Rose  to  depart  from  his 
instructions,  and  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  subjects 
which  he  was  expressly  ordered  by  his  government  not  to 
meddle  with.  Mr.  Madison,  in  his  letter  of  the  5th  of 
March,  from  which  several  extracts  have  been  made,  after 
using  every  effort  in  his  power  to  induce  Mr.  Rose  to 
violate  his  instructions,  says  in  a  passage  already  recited — 
**  I  am  not  unaware,  sir,  that  according  to  the  view  which 
you  appear  to  have  taken  of  your  instructions,  such  a 
course  of  proceeding  has  not  been  contemplated  by  them. 
It  is  possible,  nevertheless,  that  a  re-examination,  in  a  spirit, 
in  which  I  am  well  persuaded  it  will  be  made,  may  dis- 
cover them  to  be  not  inflexible  to  a  proposition  in  so  high 
a  degree  liberal  and  conciliatory."  This  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  any  thing  more  or  less  than  a  direct  proposition 
to  the  British  minister  to  violate  his  instructions  ;  and  this 
must  have  been  with  a  perfect  knowledge  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Madison,  that  any  treaty  or  arrangement  made  under 
such    circumstances    would    be    rejected    by   the   British 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  T7 

government,  because  made  in  violation  of  his  instructions. 

The  conduct  of  Mr.  Canning,  when  corresponding  with 
Mr.  Monroe,  was  marked  by  a  different  disposition.  After 
a  long  discussion  of  the  difficulties  between  the  countries, 
Mr.  Canning  said — "I  earnestly  recommend  to  you  there- 
fore, to  consider,  whether  the  instructions  which  you  have 
received  from  your  government  may  not  leave  you  at 
liberty  to  come  to  an  adjustment  of  the  case  of  the  Leopard 
and  the  Chesapeake,  independently  of  the  other  question 
with  which  it  appears  to  have  been  unnecessarily  con- 
nected. If  your  instructions  leave  you  no  discretion,  I 
cannot  press  you  to  act  in  contradiction  to  them." 

On  the  13th  of  November,  1811,  more  than  four  years 
after  the  affair  between  the  British  frigate  Leopard  and 
the  American  frigate  Chesapeake,  the  following  message 
and  correspondence  relating  to  that  subject  were  transmit- 
ted to  congress  by  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

"  I  communicate  to  congress  copies  of  a  correspondence 
between  the  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipoten- 
tiary of  Great  Britain  and  the  Secretary  of  State,  relating 
to  the  aggression  committed  by  a  British  ship  of  war  on 
the  United  States  frigate  Chesapeake,  by  which  it  will  be 
seen  that  that  subject  of  difference  between  the  two  coun- 
tries is  terminated  by  an  offer  of  reparation  which  has  been 
acceded  to." 

"  Washington,  October  ZO.ISU, 

**  Mr.  Foster  to  Mr.  Monroe. 

Sir, — I  had  already  the  honour  to  mention  to  you,  that 
I  came  to  this  country  furnished  with  instructions  from  his 
royal  highness  the  prince  regent,  in  the  name  and  on  the 
BeTialf  of  his  majesty,  for  the  purpose  of  proceeding  to  a  final 
adjustment  of  the  differences  which  have  arisen  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the 
affair  of  the  Chesapeake  frigate,  and  I  had  also  that  of 
acquainting  you  with  the  necessity,  under  which  I  found 


78  HISTORY  OF  THE 

myself,  of  suspending  the  execution  of  those  instructions 
in  consequence  of  my  not  having  perceived  that  any  steps 
whatever  were  taken  by  the  American  government  to  clear 
up  the  circumstances  of  an  event  which  threatened  so 
materially  to  interrupt  the  harmony  subsisting  between 
our  two  countries,  as  that  which  occurred  in  the  month  of 
last  May,  between  the  United  States'  ship  President  and 
his  majesty's  ship  Little  Belt,  when  every  evidence  before 
his  majesty's  government  seemed  to  show  that  a  most  evi- 
dent and  wanton  outrage  had  been  committed  on  a  British 
sloop  of  war  by  an  American  commodore. 

"  A  court  of  inquiry,  however,  as  you  informed  me  in 
your  letter  of  the  11th  instant,  has  since  been  held  by  order 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  conduct  of 
Commodore  Rodgers,  and  this  preliminary  to  further  dis- 
cussion on  the  subject  being  all  that  I  asked  in  the  first 
instance,  as  due  to  the  friendship  subsisting  between  the 
two  states,  I  have  now  the  honour  to  acquaint  you  that  I 
am  ready  to  proceed  in  the  truest  spirit  of  conciliation  to 
lay  before  you  the  terms  of  reparation  which  his  royal 
highness  has  commanded  me  to  propose  to  the  United 
States'  government,  and  only  wait  to  know  when  it  will 
suit  your  convenience  to  enter  upon  the  discussion." 

Mr.  Monroe  replied  to  this  letter  on  the  following  day. 

*'  Department  of  State,  October  31,  1811. 
*'  Mr.  Monroe  to  Mr.  Foster. 

"  Sir, — I  have  just  had  the  honour  to  receive  your  let- 
ter of  the  30th  of  this  month. 

*'  I  am  glad  to  find  that  the  communication  which  I  had 
the  honour  to  make  to  you  on  the  11th  instant  relative  to 
the  court  of  inquiry,  which  was  the  subject  of  it,  is  viewed 
by  you  in  the  favourable  light  which  you  have  stated. 

"  Although  I  regret  that  the  proposition  which  you  now 
make  in  consequence  of  that  communication  has  been  de- 
layed to  the  present  moment,  I  am  ready  to  receive  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  79 

terms  of  it  whenever  you  may  think  proper  to  communi- 
cate them.  Permit  me  to  add,  that  the  pleasure  of  finding 
them  satisfactory  will  be  duly  augmented,  if  they  should 
be  introductory  to  a  removal  of  all  the  differences  depend- 
ing between  our  two  countries,  the  hope  of  which  is  so 
little  encouraged  by  your  past  correspondence.  A  pros- 
pect of  such  a  result  will  be  embraced,  on  my  part,  with 
a  spirit  of  conciliation  equal  to  that  which  has  been  ex- 
pressed by  you." 

"  Washington,  November  1, 1811. 

"  Mr.  Foster  to  Mr.  Monroe. 

"  Sir, — In  pursuance  of  the  orders  which  I  have  re- 
ceived from  his  royal  highness  the  prince  regent,  in  the 
name  and  on  the  behalf  of  his  majesty,  for  the  purpose  of 
proceeding  to  a  final  adjustment  of  the  differences  which 
have  arisen  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
in  the  affair  of  the  Chesapeake  frigate,  I  have  the  honour 
to  acquaint  you — 

"  First,  that  I  am  instructed  to  repeat  to  the  American 
government  the  prompt  disavowal  made  by  his  majesty 
(and  recited  in  Mr.  Erskine's  note  of  April  17th,  1809,  to 
Mr.  Smith,)  on  being  apprized  of  the  unauthorized  act  of 
the  officer  in  command  of  his  naval  forces  on  the  coast  of 
America,  whose  recall  from  a  highly  important  and  honour- 
able command  immediately  ensued  as  a  mark  of  his  ma- 
jesty's disapprobation. 

**  Secondly,  tliat  I  am  authorized  to  offer,  in  addition  to 
that  disavowal,  on  the  part  of  his  royal  highness,  the  im- 
mediate restoration,  as  far  as  circumstances  will  admit,  of 
the  men  who,  in  consequence  of  Admiral  Berkeley's  orders, 
were  forcibly  taken  out  of  the  Chesapeake,  to  the  vessel 
from  which  they  were  taken :  or,  if  that  ship  should  be 
no  longer  in  commission,  to  such  seaport  of  the  United 
States  as  the  American  government  may  name  for  the 
purpose. 


80  HISTORY   OF   THE 

'*  Thirdly,  that  I  am  also  authorized  to  offer  to  the 
American  government  a  suitable  pecuniary  provision  for 
the  sufferers  in  consequence  of  the  attack  on  the  Chesa- 
peake, including  the  families  of  those  seamen  who  unfor- 
tunately fell  in  the  action,  and  of  the  wounded  survivors. 

"  These  honourable  propositions,  I  can  assure  you,  sir, 
are  made  with  the  sincere  desire  that  they  may  prove 
satisfactory  to  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and 
I  trust  they  will  meet  with  that  amicable  reception  which 
their  conciliatory  nature  entitles  them  to.  I  need  scarcely 
add  how  cordially  I  join  with  you  in  the  wish,  that  they 
might  prove  introductory  to  a  removal  of  all  the  differences 
depending  between  our  two  countries." 

"  November  \2th,  1811. 

"  Mr.  Monroe  to  Mr.  Foster. 

**  Sir, — I  have  had  the  honour  to  receive  your  letter  of 
1st  November,  and  to  lay  it  before  the  President.  It  is 
much  to  be  regretted  that  the  reparation  due  for  such  an 
aggression  as  that  committed  on  the  United  States  frigate 
Chesapeake  should  have  been  so  long  delayed  ;  nor  could 
the  translation  of  the  offending  officer  from  one  command 
to  another,  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  part  of  a  repa- 
ration otherwise  satisfactory ;  considering  however  the 
existing  circumstances  pf  the  case,  and  the  early  and  ami- 
cable attention  paid  to  it  by  his  royal  highness  the  prince 
regent,  the  president  accedes  to  the  proposition  contained 
in  your  letter,  and  in  so  doing  your  government  will,  I  am 
persuaded,  see  a  proof  of  the  conciliatory  disposition  by 
which  the  President  has  been  actuated." 

It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  this  final  adjustment  of  a 
question  about  which  so  much  had  been  said  and  done, 
should  have  been  accompanied  by  such  uncourteous  and 
undignified  language  as  that  at  the  close  of  the  foregoing 
letters.  It  seems  as  if  it  was  studiously  designed  to  irritate 
the  British  government,  even  when  nothing  could  be  gain- 
ed by  it. 


•  HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  81 

On  the  16th  of  May,  1806,  Mr.  Fox,  then  prime  minis- 
ter of  Great  Britain,  addressed  the  following  note  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  the  United  States  envoy  at  London : — 

*•  Doivning-street,  May  16,  1806. 

*'  The  undersigned,  his  majesty's  principal  secretary  of 
state  for  foreign  affairs,  has  received  his  majesty's  com- 
mands to  acquaint  Mr.  Monroe,  that  the  king,  taking  into 
consideration  the  new  and  extraordinary  means  resorted 
to  by  the  enemy  for  the  purpose  of  distressing  the  com- 
merce of  his  subjects,  has  thought  fit  to  direct,  that  the  ne- 
cessary measures  should  beta^|UH[  the  blockade  of  the 
coast,  rivers,  and  ports,  fromtB^^^i  Elbe  to  the  port  of 
Brest,  both  inclusive,  and  the  said  coast,  rivers,  and  ports, 
are  and  must  be  considered  as  blockaded ;  but  that  his  majes- 
'ty  is  pleased  to  declare,  that  such  blockade  shall  not  extend 
.  to  prevent  neutral  ships  and  vessels,  laden  with  goods  not 
being  the  property  of  his  majesty's  enemies,  and  not  being 
contraband  of  war,  from  approaching  the  said  coast,  and 
entering  into  and  sailing  from  the  said  rivers  and  ports, 
(save  and  except  the  coast,  rivers  and  ports,  from  Ostend 
to  the  river  Seine,  already  in  a  state  of  strict  and  rigorous 
blockade,  and  which  are  to  be  considered  as  so  continued,) 
provided  the  said  ships  and  vessels  so  approaching  and  en- 
tering (except  as  aforesaid)  shall  not  have  been  laden  at 
any  port  belonging  to  or  in  the  possession  of  any  of  his 
majesty's  enemies,  and  that  the  said  ships  and  vessels,  so 
sailing  from  the  said  rivers  and  ports  (except  as  aforesaid) 
shall  not  be  destined  to  any  port  belonging  to  or  in  the  pos- 
session of  any  of  his  majesty's  enemies,  nor  have  previ- 
ously broken  the  blockade. 

"  Mr.  Monroe  is  therefore  requested  to  apprise  the 
American  consuls  and  merchants  residing  in  England, 
that  the  coast,  rivers,  and  ports  above  mentioned,  must  be 
considered  as  being  in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  that  from 
this  time  all  the  measures,  authorized  by  the  law  of  na- 
il 


82  HISTORY   OF   THE  * 

tions  and  the  respective  treaties  between  his  majesty  and 
the  different  neutral  powers,  will  be  adopted  and  executed 
with  respect  to  vessels  attempting  to  violate  the  said 
blockade  after  this  notice." 

On  the  17th  of  May,  Mr.  Monroe  wrote  to  the  Secreta- 
ry of  State,  and  communicated  this  note  from  Mr.  Fox  y 
and  in  the  course  of  his  letter  made  the  following  re- 
marks : — 

*'  Early  this  morning  I  received  from  Mr.  Fox  a  note,  a 
copy  of  which  is  enclosed,  which  you  will  perceive  em- 
braces explicitly  a  principal  subject  depending  between 
our  governments,  though  in  rather  a  singular  mode.  A 
similar  communication  is,  I  presume,  made  to  the  other 
ministers,  though  of  that  I  have  no  information.  The 
note  is  couched  in  terms  of  restraint,  and  professes  to  ex- 
tend the  blockade  further  than  was  heretofore  done ;  never- 
theless it  takes  it  from  many  ports  already  blockaded,  in- 
deed from  all  east  of  Ostend  and  west  of  the  Seine,  except 
in  articles  contraband  of  war  and  enemies'  property,  which 
are  seizable  without  a  blockade.  And  in  like  form  of  ex- 
ception, considering  every  enemy  as  one  power,  it  admits 
the  trade  of  neutrals,  within  the  same  limit,  to  be  free,  in 
the  productions  of  enemies  colonies,  in  every  but  the  direct 
route  between  the  colony  and  the  parent  country.  I  have^ 
however,  been  too  short  a  time  in  the  possession  of  this 
paper  to  trace  it  in  all  its  consequences  in  regard  to  this 
question.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  note  was  drawn 
by  the  government  in  reference  to  the  question,  and  if  in- 
tended by  the  cabinet  as  a  foundation  on  which  Mr.  Fox 
is  authorized  to  form  a  treaty,  and  obtained  by  him  for 
the  purpose,  it  must  he  viewed  in  a  very  favourable  light , 
It  seems  clearly  to  put  an  end  to  further  seizures^  on  the 
principle  which  has  been  heretofore  in  contestation.^'^ 

On  the  20th  of  May  Mr.  Monroe  wrote  again  to  the 
Secretary  of  State.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  hi» 
letter.     "  From  what  I  could  collect,  I  have  been  strength- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  S3 

«ned  in  the  opinion  which  I  communicated  to  you  in  my 
]ast,.tfiat  Mr.  Fox's  note  of  the  16th  was  drawn  with  a 
view  to  a  principal  question  with  the  United  States,  I 
mean  that  of  the  trade  with  enemies'  colonies.  It  em- 
braces, it  is  true,  other  objects,  particularly  the  commerce 
with  Prussia,  and  the  north  generally,  whose  ports  it  opens 
to  neutral  powers,  under  whose  flag  British  manufactures 
will  find  a  market  there.  In  this  particular^  especially^ 
the  measure  promises  to  be  highly  satisfactory  to  the  com- 
mercial interest,  and  it  may  have  been  the  primary  object  of 
the  government." 

On  the  21st  of  November,  1806,  Bonaparte  issued  his 
decree,  commonly  called  the  Berlin  decree,  from  the  fact 
that  it  bears  date  from  the  Prussian  capital. 

**  Imperial  Decree  of  the  21st  of  November,  1806. 
*'  Art.  1.  The  British  islands  are  declared  in  a  state  of 
blockade. 

2.  All  commerce  and  correspondence  with  the  British 
islands  are  prohibited.  In  consequence,  letters  or  packets, 
addressed  either  to  England,  to  an  Englishman,  or  in  the 
English  language,  shall  not  pass  through  the  post  office, 
and  shall  be  seized, 

3.  Every  subject  of  England,  of  whatever  rank  arid  con- 
dition soever,  who  shall  be  found  in  the  countries  occupied 
by  our  troops,  or  by  those  of  our  allies,  shall  be  made  a 
prisoner  of  war. 

4.  All  magazines,  merchandise,  or  property  whatso- 
ever, belonging  to  a  subject  of  England,  shall  be  declared 
lawful  prize. 

5.  The  trade  in  English  merchandise  is  forbidden ;  all 
merchandise  belonging  to  England,  or  coming  from  its 
manufactories  and  colonies,  is  declared  lawful  prize. 

6.  One  half  of  the  proceeds  of  the  confiscation  of  the 
merchandise  and  property,  declared  good  prize  by  the  pre- 
ceding articles,  shall  be  applied  to  indemnify  the  mer- 


84  HISTORY  OF  THE 

chants  for  the  losses  which  they  have  suffered  by  the  cap- 
ture of  merchant  vessels  by  English  cruisers.  •    • 

7.  No  vessel  coming  directly  from  England,  or  from  the 
English  colonies,  or  having  been  there  since  the  publica- 
tion of  the  present  decree,  shall  be  received  into  any  port. 

8.  Every  vessel  contravening  the  above  clause,  by 
means  of  a  false  declaration,  shall  be  seized,  and  the  ves- 
sel and  cargo  confiscated  as  if  they  were  English  pro- 
perty. 

9.  Our  tribunal  of  prizes  at  Paris  is  charged  with  the 
definitive"  adjudication  of  all  the  controversies  which  may 
arise  within  our  empire,  or  in  the  countries  occupied  by 
the  French  army  relative  to  the  execution  of  the  present 
decree.  Our  tribunal  of  prizes  at  Milan  shall  be  charged 
with  the  definitive  adjudication  of  the  said  controversies, 
which  may  arise  within  the  extent  of  our  kingdom  of 
Italy. 

10.  The  present  decree  shall  be  communicated  by  our 
minister  of  exterior  relations,  to  the  Jiings  of  Spain,  of 
Naples,  of  Holland,  and  of  Etruria,  and  to  our  allies,  whose 
subjects,  like  ours,  are  the  victims  of  the  injustice  and  the 
barbarism  of  the  English  maritime  laws.  Our  ministers 
of  exterior  relations,  of  war,  of  marine,  of  finances,  of 
police,  and  our  post  masters  general,  are  charged  each,  in 
what  concerns  him,  with  the  execution  of  the  present 
decree." 

On  the  11th  of  November,  1807,  a  new  order  in  council 
was  issued  by  the  British  government,  in  which  it  is  de- 
clared, "that  all  the  ports  and  places  of  France  and  her 
allies,  or  of  any  other  country  at  war  with  his  majesty,  and 
other  ports  and  places  in  Europe,  from  which,  although 
not  at  war  with  his  majesty,  the  British  flag  is  excluded, 
and  all  ports  or  places  in  the  colonies  belonging  to  his 
majesty's  enemies,  shall  from  henceforth  be  subject  to  the 
same  restrictions,  in  point  of  trade  and  navigation,  with 
the  exceptions  hereinafter  mentioned,  as  if  the  same  were 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  S5 

actually  blockaded  by  his  majesty's  naval  forces  in  the 
most  strict  and  rigorous  manner  :  and  it  is  hereby  further 
ordered  and  declared,  that  all  trade  in  articles,  which  are 
of  the  produce  or  manufacture  of  the  said  countries  or 
colonies,  together  with  all  goods  and  merchandise  on 
board,  and  all  articles  of  the  produce  or  manufacture  of 
the  said  countries  or  colonies,  shall  be  captured  and  con- 
demned as  prize  to  the  captors." 

The  order  contained  various  other  provisions,  not  ne- 
cessary to  the  object  of  this  work,  all  professedly  founded 
upon  the  idea  of  retaliation  for  the  French  decree  alluded 
to,  and  to  the  extravagant  assumptions  of  power,  and  gross 
violation  of  principle,  and  the  rights  of  neutrals. 

To  meet  this  measure  of  the  British  government,  the 
Emperor  of  France,  on  the  11th  of  December,  1807, 
issued  a  new  decree  from  his  imperial  palace  at  Milan, 
which  from  that  circumstance  has  been  called  the  Milan 
Decree.    After  a  preamble,  it  declares — 

"  Art.  1.  Every  ship,  to  whatever  nation  it  may  belong, 
that  shall  have  submitted  to  be  searched  by  an  English 
ship,. or  on  a  voyage  to  England,  or  shall  have  paid  any 
tax  ^^^hatsoever  to  the  English  government,  is  thereby  and 
for  that  alone,  declared  to  be  denationalized,  to  have  for- 
feited the  protection  of  its  king,  and  to  have  become 
English  property. 

2.  Whether  the  ships  thus  denationalized  by  the  arbi- 
trary measures  of  the  English  government,  enter  into  our 
ports,  or  those  of  our  allies,  or  whether  they  fall  into  the 
hands  of  our  ships  of  war,  or  of  our  privateers,  they  are 
declared  to  be  good  and  lawful  prizes. 

3.  The  British  islands  are  declared  to  be  in  a  state  of 
blockade,  both  by  land  and  sea.  Every  ship  of  whatever 
nation,  or  whatsoever  the  nature  of  its  cargo  may  be,  that 
sails  from  the  ports  of  England,  or  those  of  the  English 
colonies,  and  of  the  countries  occupied  by  English  troops, 
and  proceeding  to  England,  or  to  the  English  colonies,  or 


86  HISTORY   OF   THE 

to  countries  occupied  by  English  troops,  is  good  and  lawful 
prize,  as  contrary  to  the  present  decree,  and  may  be  cap- 
tured by  our  ships  of  war,  or  our  privateers,  and  adjudged 
to  the  captor. 

4.  These  measures,  which  are  resorted  to  only  in  just 
retaliation  of  the  barbarous  system  adopted  by  England, 
which  assimilates  its  legislation  to  that  of  Algiers,  shall 
cease  to  have  any  effect  with  respect  to  all  nations  who 
shall  have  the  firmness  to  compel  the  English  govern- 
ment to  respect  their  flag.  They  shall  continue  to  be 
rigorously  in  force,  as  long  as  that  government  does  not 
return  to  the  principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  which  regu-  " 
lates  the  relations  of  civilized  states  in  a  state  of  war.  The 
provisions  of  the  present  decree  shall  be  abrogated  and 
null,  in  fact,  as  soon  as  the  English  abide  again  by  the 
principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  which  are  also  the  princi- 
ples of  justice  and  of  honour." 

These  British  orders  in  council,  and  French  decrees, 
were  all  in  force  at  the  time  the  negotiation  with  Mr. 
Erskine  commenced,  and  were  just  subjects  of  uneasiness, 
complaint  and  remonstrance,  on  the  part  of  the  Upited 
States.  Property  to  a  large  amount,  belonging  to  American 
citizens,  and  not  liable  to  condemnation  or  capture  under 
the  well  established  principles  of  the  laws  of  nations,  was 
taken  and  confiscated  by  both  parties ;  and  it  almost 
seemed  as  if  the  warfare  which  was  raging  between  the 
two  most  refined  and  civilized  nations  in  Europe,  would 
degenerate  into  downright  piracy  and  barbarism. 

On  the  18th  of  December,  1807,  Mr.  Jefferson  commu- 
nicated to  both  houses  of  Congress  the  following  message — 

*'  The  communications  now  made,  showing  the  great 
and  increasing  dangers  with  which  our  vessels,  our  sea- 
men, and  merchandise,  arc  threatened  on  the  high  seas 
and  elsewhere,  from  the  belligerent  powers  of  Europe,  and 
it  being  of  the  greatest  importance  to  keep  in  safety  these 
essential  resources,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  recommend  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  87 

subject  to  the  consideration  of  Congress,  who  will  doubt- 
less perceive  all  the  advantages  which  may  be  expected 
from  an  inhibition  of  the  departure  of  our  vessels  from  the 
ports  of  the  United  States. 

"  Their  wisdom  will  also  see  the  necessity  of  making 
every  preparation  for  whatever  events  may  grow  out  of  the 
present  crisis." 

The  only  documents  published  in  the  state  papers  as 
having  accompanied  this  message,  were, 

1.  An  "  Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  (French)  Grand 
Judge,  Minister  of  Justice,  to  the  Imperial  Attorney  Ge- 
neral for  the  Council  of  Prizes  ;'* — of  which  the  following 
is  a  translation — 

"  Paris,  Sept  18,  1807. 

"Sir, — I  have  submitted  to  his  majesty  the  emperor 
and  king  the  doubts  raised  .by  his  excellency  the  minister 
of  marine  and  colonies,  on  the  extent  of  certain  disposi- 
tions of  the  imperial  decree  of  the  21st  of  November,  1806, 
which  has  declared  the  British  isles  in  a  state  of  blockade. 
The  following  are  his  majesty's  intentions  on  the  points  in 
question  : 

1st.  May  vessels  of  war,  by  virtue  of  the  imperial  decree 
of  the  21st  November  last,  seize  on  board  neutral  vessels 
either  English  property,  or  even  all  merchandise  proceed- 
ing from  the  English  manufactories  or  territory  ? 

Answer.  His  majesty  has  intimated,  that  as  he  did  not 
think  proper  to  express  any  exception  in  his  decree,  there 
is  no  ground  for  making  any  in  its  execution,  in  relation 
to  any  whomsoever  (a  I'egard  de  qui  que  ce  pent  etre.) 

2dly.  His  majesty  has  postponed  a  decision  on  the  ques- 
tion whether  armed  French  vessels  ought  to  capture 
neutral  vessels  bound  to  or  from  England,  even  when  they 
have  no  English  merchandise  on  board. 

Regnier." 


J 


$8  HISTORY   OF   THE 

And  2.  A  document  cut  from  an  English  newspaper,  the 
London  Gazette  of  October  17,  purporting  to  be  a  procla- 
mation by  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  *'  for  recalling  and 
prohibiting  British  seamen  from  serving  foreign  princes 
and  states,"  and  dated  October  16, 1807.  This  document 
concluded  in  the  following  manner — 

"  And  we  do  hereby  notify,  that  all  such  our  subjects  as 
aforesaid,  who  have  voluntarily  entered,  or  shall  enter,  or 
voluntarily  continue  to  serve  on  board  of  any  ships  of  war 
belonging  to  any  foreign  state  at  enmity  with  us,  are  and 
will  be  guilty  of  high  treason  :  and  we  do  by  this  our  royal 
proclamation  declare,  that  they  shall  be  punished  with  the 
utmost  severity  of  the  law." 

y  In  a  speech  of  Mr.  Pickering,  a  member  of  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  from  Massachusetts,  on  a  resolution 
to  repeal  all  the  embargo  laws,  on  the  30th  of  November, 
1808,  in  allusion  to  the  act.  of  Congress  of  December, 
1807,  laying  the  embargo,  the  following  remarks  are  to  be 
found — 

"  Of  the  French  papers  supposed  to  be  brought  by  the 
Revenge,  none  w^ere  communicated  to  Congress,  save  a 
letter  dated  September  24:th,  1807,  from  General  Armstrong 
to  M.  Champagny,  and  his  answer  of  the  1th  of  October, 
relative  to  the  Berlin  decree,  and  a  letter  from  Regnier, 
minister  of  justice,  to  Champagny,  giving  the  emperor's 
interpretation  of  that  decree.  These  three  papers,  with  a 
newspaper  copy  of  a  proclamation  of  the  king  of  Great 
Britain,  issued  in  the  same  October,  were  aH  the  papers 
communicated  by  the  President  to  Congress,  as  the 
grounds  on  which  he  recommended  the  embargo.  These 
papers,  he  said,  *'  showed  the  great  and  increasing  dangers 
with  which  our  vessels,  our  seamen  and  merchandise  were 
threatened  on  the  high  seas  and  elsewhere,  from  the  beHi- 
gerent  powers  of  Europe."  ) 

\These  remarks  of  Mr.  Pickering  were  made  in  debate 
in  the  Senate,  within  less  than  a  year  from  the  date  of  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  80*^ 

inessage  recommending  an  embargo,  and  of  course,  as 
they  were  not  denied  or  questioned,  they  must  be  taken  to 
be  correct.  It  is  certainly  a  singular  circumstance,  if  they 
were  correct,  that  none  of  the  documents  alluded  to  are 
published  with  the  message  recommending  the  embargo, 
except  Regnier's  letter,  and  the  British  proclamation 
recalling  their  seamen.  )  In  the  same  volume  of  *'  state 
papers,"  published  by  Wait  <fc  Sons,  four  hundred  pages 
farther  advanced  in  the  volume,  are  to  be  found  Regnier's 
letter  of  the  18th  of  September,  1807,  General  Armstrong's 
letter  of  September  24th  to  the  minister  of  foreign  rela- 
tions, and  Champagny's  answer  of  October  7th.  Why 
they  we're  not  published  with  the  message  with  which  they 
w^re  communicated  to  Congress,  and  more  especially  how 
they  came  to  be  placed  where  they  are,  are  matters  that 
we  cannot  explain.  General  Armstrong's  letter  i«  as 
follows — 

'*  Paris,  Sept.  24,  ISO"^. 

"  Sir, — I  have  this  moment  learned  that  a  new  and 
extended  construction,  highly  injurious  to  the  commerce 
of  the  United  States,  was  about  to  be  given  to  the  imperial 
decree  of  the  21st  of  November  last.  It  is  therefore  in- 
cumbent upon  me  to  ask  from  your  excellency  an  expla- 
nation of  his  majesty's  views  in  relation  to  this  subject,  and 
particularly  whether  it  be  his  majesty's  intention,  in  any 
degree,  to  infract  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  now  subsist- 
ing between  the  United  States  and  the  French  empire? 

"  John  Armstrong. 

'*  His  Excellency  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations." 

The  following  is  M.  Champagny's  answer — 

"  Fontainhleaii,  Oct.  7,  1807. 

**  Sir, — You  did  me  the  honour,  on  the  24th  of  Septiem- 
ber,  to  request  me  to  send  you  some  explanations  as  to  th« 

12 


90  HISTORY    OF    THE 

execution  of  the  decree  of  blockade  of  the  British  islands, 
as  to  vessels  of  the  United  States- 

"The  provisions  of  all  the  regulations  and  treaties  rela- 
tive to  a  state  of  blockade  have  appeared  applicable  to  the 
existing  circumstance,  and  it  results  from  the  explanations 
which  have  been  addressed  to  me  by  the  imperial  pro- 
cureur  general  of  the  council  of  prizes,  that  his  majesty  has 
considered  every  neutral  vessel,  going  from  English  ports, 
with  cargoes  of  English  merchandise,  or  of  English  origin, 
as  lawfully  seizable  by  French  armed  vessels. 

"  The  decree  of  blockade  has  been  now  issued  eleven 
months.  The  principal  powers  of  Europe,  far  from  pro- 
testing against  its  provisions,  have  adopted  them.  They 
have  perceived  that  its  execution  must  be  complete,  to 
render  it  more  effectual,  and  it  has  seemed  easy  to  recon- 
cile the  measure  with  the  observance  of  treaties,  especially 
at  a  time  when  the  infractions,  by  England,  of  the  rights 
cf  all  maritime  powers,  render  their  interests  common, 
and  tend  to  unite  them  in  support  of  the  same  cause. 

"  Champagny." 

*'  His  Excellency  General  Armstrong, 
Minister  Plen.  of  the  U.  States." 

1  It  is  perfectly  apparent,  from  the  examination  of  these 
several  documents,  that  no  new  facts  appeared  respecting 
the  policy  or  measures  of  Great  Britain,  which  justified  or 
called  for  an  embargo.  The  proclamation,  allowing  it  to 
have  been  a  genuine  state  paper,  showed  no  new  or  ad- 
ditional marks  of  animosity  against  the  United  States,  or 
their  commerce.  It  appears  to  have  been  a  mere  mea- 
sure of  precaution  for  the  security  of  their  seamen.  The 
aggravated  spirit  of  hostility  towards  this  country,  and  its 
commercial  interests,  was  to  be  found  only  in  the  French 
documents.  But  as  the  French  had  at  that  time  very  little 
external  commerce,  and  but  few  vessels  of  any  descrip- 
tion afloat,  and  Great  Britain  had  the  command  of  the 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  91 

ocean ;  under  such  circumstances,  it  was  doubtless  thought 
necessary,  if  for  nothing  else,  to  appease  the  feelings  of 
his  imperial  majesty  of  France,  to  adopt  a  measure  which 
should  involve  Great  Britain  as  well  as  France,  in  its  ope- 
rations. And  hence  the  British  proclamation  was  intro- 
duced, as  furnishing  evidence  of  "  the  great  and  increasing 
dangers  with  which  our  vessels,  our  seamen,  and  merchan- 
dise were  threatened  on  the  high  seas  and  elsewhere  from 
the  belligerent  powers  of  Europe."  / 

The  remark  in  the  President's  message,  as  far  as  it  re- 
lated to  this  document,  was  not  true.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  British  proclamation  which  showed  the  slightest  in- 
crease of  danger  to  our  vessels,  seamen,  or  merchandise. 
(  That  our  commerce  had  suffered  great  injustice  from 
thV  British  orders  of  council,  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  and 
there  never  was,  it  is  presumed,  any  disposition  among 
the  opposers  of  the  embargo,  to  excuse  or  vindicate  that 
injustice.  But  great  as  it  was,  it  in  a  variety  of  respects 
fell  far  short  of  the  atrocious  conduct  of  France  towards  us. 
After  the  naval  power  of  France  had  been  destroyed  by  tho 
British,  and  the  nation  was  in  effect  driven  from  the  ocean, 
it  became  an  object  of  the  highest  importance  to  Bona- 
parte to  prevent  all  commercial  intercourse  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  continent.  To  accomplish  this,  he  un- 
dertook to  establish  his  famous  Continental  System — which 
was  nothing  less  than  an  attempt,  by  the  most  arbitrary 
and  oppressive  measures,  to  shut  out  all  British  trade,  mer- 
chandise, produce,  and  manufactures,  from  the  nations  on 
the  continent.  ^  His  decrees,  issued  at  Berlin,  Milan,  and 
Rambouillet,  were  parts  of  the  machinery  by  which  he  in- 
tended to  carry  his  project  into  effect.  It  is  perfectly  clear 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  in  prosecuting  this  pro- 
ject, it  must  have  been  his  intention  from  the  beginning  to 
disregard  every  principle  of  law,  justice,  and  humanity, 
that  might  stand  in  his  way.  As  a  large  part  of  the  neu- 
tral trade  of  the  world  was  carried  on  through  American 


92  HISTORY    OF    THE 

vessels,  it  was  necessary  for  his  purposes  either  to  drive 
us  from  our  neutrality,  or  render  the  trade  so  hazardous 
as  to  induce  us  to  withdraw  from  it.  And  there  is  much 
evidence  in  the  proceedings  of  our  government,  to  show, 
that  as  far  as  his  measures  could  be  carried  into  effect 
against  Great  Britain,  without  too  great  a  sacrifice  on  our 
part,  Mr.  Jefferson  and  his  partisans  were  willing  he 
should  succeed.  Many  proofs  of  his  animosity  against 
Great  Britain,  and  of  his  partiality  for  France,  will  be 
found  in  this  history.  And  whoever  will  take  the  pains 
to  examine  the  public  state  papers  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  or  the  Memoirs  and  Correspondence  of 
Mr.  Jefferson,  published  since  his  death,  will  find  abun- 
dant evidence  of  that  animosity  towards  the  one,  and  that 
partiality  towards  the  other.  In  addition  to  the  evidence 
derived  from  these  sources,  of  his  abject  subserviency  to 
France,  further  proof  may  be  adduced,  from  a  pamphlet 
published  about  the  same  period,  of  these  transactions, 
entitled,  "  Further  Suppressed  Documents  ;"  from 
which  is  copied  the  following  article  : — 

*•  Extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Armstrong  to  Mr.  Madison.. 

"  February  22,  1808. 
*'  Mr.  Patterson  offering  so  good  a  conveyance  that  I 
cannot  but  employ  it.  Nothing  has  occurred  here  since  the 
date  of  my  public  dispatches  (the  17th)  to  give  to  our  bu- 
siness an  aspect  more  favourable  than  it  then  had  ;  but  on 
the  other  hand,  I  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  two  facts 
which  I  think  sufficiently  show  the  decided  character  of 
the  Emperor's  policy  with  regard  to  us.  These  are  first, 
that  in  a  Council  of  Administration  held  a  few  days  past, 
when  it  was  proposed  to  modify  the  Decrees  of  November, 
1$06,  and  December,  1807,  (though  the  proposition  was 
supported  by  the  whole  weight  of  the  Council,)  he  became 
highly  indignant,  and  declared  that  these  decrees  should 
suffer  no  change — and  that  the  Americans  should  be  com- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  93 

pelled  to  take  the  positive  character  of  either  allies  or  enemies : 
2d,  that  on  the  27th  of  January  last,  twelve  days  after 
Mr.  Champagny's  written  assurances  that  these  Decrees 
should  work  no  change  in  the  property  sequestered  until  our 
discussions  with  England  were  brought  to  a  close,  and  seven 
days  before  he  reported  to  me  verbally  these  very  assurances, 
the  Emperor  had  by  a  special  decision  confiscated  tioo  of 
our  ships  and  their  cargoes,  (the  Julius  Henry  and  the  Ju- 
niata,) for  want  merely  of  a  document  not  required  by  any 
law  or  usage  of  the  commerce  in  which  they  had  been  en- 
gaged. This  act  was  taken,  as  I  am  informed  on  a  general 
report  of  sequestered  cases,  amounting  to  one  hundred  and 
sixty,  and  which,  at  present  prices,  will  yield  upwards  of 
one  hundred  millions  of  francs,  a  sum  whose  magnitude 
alone  renders  hopeless  all  attempts  at  saving  it — Danes, 
Portuguese,  and  Americans,  will  be  the  principal  sufferers. 
If  I  am  right  in  supposing  that  the  emj}eror  has  defifiitively 
taken  his  ground,  I  cannot  he  wrong  in  concluding  that  you 
will  immediately  take  yours,^'' 

Here  is  decisive  evidence  of  Bonaparte's  object  in  issu- 
ing and  enforcing  his  decrees.  It  was  to  compel  the  United 
States  to  become  either  his  allies,  or  his  enemies  ;  and  hence, 
when  urged  to  modify  those  decrees  by  his  Council  of 
Administration,  he  became  indignant,  and  declared  they 
should  suffer  no  change. 

In  this  same  publication  of  "  Suppressed  Documents," 
is  the  following  letter — 

^^  London,  January  26M,  1808. 

♦'  From  Mr.  Pinkney  to  Mr.  Madison. 

"  Sir, — I  had  the  honour  to  receive  this  morning  your 
letter  of  the  23d  of  last  month,  inclosing  a  copy  of  a  mes- 
sage from  the  President  to  Congress,  and  of  their  act  in 
pursuance  of  it,  laying  an  embargo  on  our  vessels  and 
exports.     It  appeared  to  be  my  duty  to  lose  no  time  in 


94  HISTORY    OF   THE 

giving  such  explanations  to  the  British  government,  of  this 
wise  and  salutary  measure,  as  your  letter  suggests.  And 
accordingly  I  went  to  Downing-street  immediately,  and 
had  a  short  conference  with  Mr.  Canning,  who  received 
my  explanations  with  great  apparent  satisfaction,  and  took 
occasion  to  express  the  most  friendly  disposition  towards  our 
country.  I  availed  myself  of  this  opportunity,  to  mention 
a  subject  of  some  importance,  connected  with  the  late 
orders  in  council. 

"  I  had  been  told,  that  American  vessels  coming  into 
British  ports  under  warning,  could  not  obtain  any  docu- 
ment to  enable  them  to  return  to  the  United  States,  in  the 
event  of  its  being  found  imprudent,  either  to  deposit  their 
cargoes,  or  to  resume  their  original  voyages,  although  they 
are  not  prohibited  from  returning,  yet  as  the  warning  is 
endorsed  on  their  papers,  the  return  may  be  hazardous, 
without  some  British  documents  to  prove  compliance  with 
it  and  give  security  to  the  voyage.  Mr.  C.  took  a  note  of 
what  I  said,  and  assured  me  that  whatever  was  necessary 
to  give  the  facility  in  question,  would  be  done  without  delay  ; 
and  he  added,  that  it  was  their  sincere  wish  to  show,  in  every 
thing  connected  icith  the  orders  in  council,  which  only  necessity 
had  compelled  them  to  adopt,  their  anxiety  to  accommodate 
them,  as  far  as  was  consistent  with  their  object,  to  the  feelings 
and  interest  of  the  American  government  and  people.^"* 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  why  these  documents  were  kept 
hidden  from  the  public  eye,  unless  it  was  the  fear  that  the 
country  at  large,  from  the  difference  of  style  and  sentiment 
between  the  two,  would  form  opinions  unfavourable  to  the 
policy  which  our  government  were  pursuing  in  relation  to 
the  two  countries.  The  tone  of  the  French  emperor,  as 
conveyed  in  the  letter  of  General  Armstrong,  was  impe- 
rious, and  insolent.  He  would  force  the  United  States  to 
take  the  positive  character  of  either  allies,  or  enemies — 
he  became  highly  indignant,  and  would  suffer  no  change  in 
his  decrees — showing  conclusively,  that  his  object  was  to 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  95 

make  them  answer  his  own  purposes,  regardless  of  their 
effects  upon  the  United  States.  ^ 

By  Mr.  Pinkney's  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  it  appears,  that 
when  the  former  communicated  to  3Ir.  Canning,  the  British 
minister,  the  information  that  Congress  had  established 
the  embargo,  the  latter  "received  his  explanations  with 
great  apparent  satisfaction,  and  took  occasion  to  express 
the  most  friendly  disposition  towards  our  country." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  show  in  what  manner  these  *'  sup- 
pressed documents"  were  obtained  for  publication.  It  is 
enough  for  the  public  to  know  that  they  were  obtained, 
and  that  they  are  genuine.  Of  the  latter  fact  they  may 
rest  assured  ;  the  author  having  been  furnished  with  the 
most  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  fact — so  much  so,  that  it 
will  not  be  questioned  by  those  by  whose  order  they  were 
kept  back  from  the  public. 

In  a  report  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  bearing  date  November  22d, 
1808,  is  the  following  passage — 

"  It  was  on  the  18th  of  September,  1807,  that  a  new  con- 
struction of  the  decree  took  place  ;  an  instruction  having 
on  that  day  been  transmitted  to  the  council  of  prizes  by  the 
minister  of  justice,  by  which  that  court  was  informed,  that 
French  armed  vessels  were  authorized,  under  that  decree, 
to  seize  withor.t  exception,  in  neutral  vessels,  either  Eng- 
lish property,  or  merchandise  of  English  growth  or  manu- 
facture. An  immediate  explanation  having  been  asked 
from  the  French  minister  of  foreign  relations,  he  con- 
firmed, in  his  answer  of  the  7th  of  October,  1807,  the  de- 
termination of  his  government  to  adopt  that  construction. 
Its  first  application  took  place  on  the  10th  of  the  same 
month,  in  the  case  of  the  Horizon,  of  which  the  minister 
of  the  United  States  was  not  informed  until  the  month  of 
November  ;  and  on  the  twelfth  of  that  month  he  presented 
a  spirited  remonstrance  against  that  infraction  of  the 
neutral  rights  of  the  United  States.    He  had,  in  the  mean 


^6  HISTORY    OF    THE 

while,  transmitted  to  America  the  instruction  to  the  coun- 
cil of  prizes  of  the  18th  of  September.  This  was  received 
on  the  of  December  ;  and  a  copy  of  the  decision  in  the 
case  of  the  Horizon  having  at  the  same  time  reached 
government,  the  President,  aware  of  the  consequences 
which  would  follow  that  new  state  of  things,  communicated 
immediately  to  Congress  the  alteration  of  the  French  de- 
cree, and  recommended  the  embargo,  which  was  accord- 
ingly laid  on  the  22d  of  December,  1807  ;  at  which  time  it 
was  well  understood^  in  this  country^  the  British  orders  of 
council  of  November  preceding  had  issued,  although  they 
were  not  ofjUcially  communicated  to  cur  governments 

In  the  "  Suppressed  Documents,"  to  which  reference 
has  been  made,  there  is  a  letter  from  General  Armstrong, 
in  which  some  remarks  are  made  which  may  probably 
explain  the  reason  why  those  papers  were  not  suffered  to 
see  the  light.     The  following  is  an  extract  from  it — 

"30^/i  August,  1808. 

\**  We  have  somewhat  overrated  our  means  of  coercion 
of  the  two  great  belligerents  to  a  course  of  justice.  The 
embargo  is  a  measure  calculated -above  any  other,  to  keep 
us  whole,  and  keep  us  in  peace,  but  beyond  this  you  must 
not  count  upon  it.  Here  it  is  net  felt,  and  in  England  (in 
the  midst  of  the  more  interesting  events  of  the  day)  it  is 
forgotten.'') 

However  lightly  it  was  esteemed  as  a  measure  of  coer- 
cion in  France,  and  however  speedily  it  passed  out  of  mind 
in  England,  it  is  very  certain  that  its  full  force  was  felt  at 
home,  and  it  bore  too  hardly  upon  the  public  prosperity, 
as  well  as  upon  private  enterprise,  to  be  either  slighted  or 
disregarded.  Upon  finding  a  strong  spirit  of  opposition 
to  its  principles,  as  well  as  to  its  provisions,  in  January, 
1809,  Congress  passed  an  act  to  enforce  and  make  it  more 
effectual,  which  excited  a  great  deal  of  feeling,  and  no  in- 
considerable degree  of  alarm  through  a  large  part  of  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  97 

country ;  and  probably  this  measure  had  considerable 
efficacy  in  accomplishing  the  repeal  of  the  embargo  law, 
and  of  introducing  the  non-intercourse  act  in  its  place. 

But  in  this,  as  in  almost  all  other  cases  of  importance 
under  Mr.  Jefferson's  administration,  it  is  necessary  to  ex- 
amine closely  into  the  subject,  in  order  to  ascertain  whe- 
ther the  reasons  given  to  the  public  for  the  recommenda- 
tion of  his  measures  are  the  genuine  ones,  and  whether 
there  is  not  something  kept  out  of  sight,  which,  if  disco- 
vered, might  give  a  different  aspect  to  the  matter  in  hand. 
It  has  been  seen  by  the  letter  from  General  Armstrong  to 
V.  Mr.  Madison,  copied  from  the  suppressed  documents,  dated  I 
February  22d,  1808,  that  Bonaparte  had  declared  that  the 
United  States  should  be  compelled  to  take  the  positive 
character  of  either  allies  or  enemies.  (In  Mr.  Jefferson's 
Works,  published  since  his  death,  is  a  letter  to  Robert  L. 
Livingston,  dated  Washington,  October  15th,  1808,  from 
which  the  following  is  a  quotation : — 

*'  Your  letter  of  September  the  22d  waited  here  for  my 
return,  and  it  is  not  till  now  that  I  have  been  able  to  ac- 
knowledge it.  The  explanation  of  his  principles,  given 
you  by  the  French  Emperor,  in  conversation,  is  correct,  as 
far  as  it  goes.  He  does  not  wish  us  to  go  to  war  with 
England,  knowing  we  have  no  ships  to  carry  on  that  war. 
To  submit  to  pay  to  England  the  tribute  on  our  commerce 
which  she  demands  by  her  orders  of  council,  would  be  to 
aid  her  in  the  war  against  him,  and  would  give  him  just  ■ 
ground  to  declare  war  with  us.  He  concludes,  therefore,  as 
every  rational  man  must,  that  the  embargo,  the  only  re- 
maining alternative,  was  a  wise  measure.  These  are  ac- 
knowledged principles,  and  should  circumstances  arise 
which  may  offer  advantage  to  our  country  in  making  them 
public,  we  shall  avail  ourselves  of  them.  But  as  it  is  not 
usual  nor  agreeable  to  governments  to  bring  their  conver- 
sations before  the  public,  I  think  it  would  be  well  to  consi- 
der this  on  your  part  as  confidential,  leaving  to  the  govern- 

13 


§8  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ment  to  retain  or  make  it  public,  as  the  general  good  may 
require.  Had  the  Emperor  gone  further,  and  said  that 
he  condemned  our  vessels  going  voluntarily  into  his  ports 
in  breach  of  his  municipal  laws,  we  might  have  admitted 
it  rigorously  legal,  though  not  friendly.  But  his  condem- 
nation of  vessels  taken  on  the  high  seas  by  his  privateers, 
and  carried  involuntarily  into  his  ports,  is  justifiable  by  no 
law,  is  piracy,  and  this  is  the  wrong  we  complain  of 
against  him." Y 

/Who,  after  reading  this  language  from  Mr.  Jefferson j 
can  hesitate  as  to  the  real  object  which  he  intended  to 
accomplish  by  establishing  an  en«bargo  ?  No  other  course 
would  have  answered  the  purpose  he  had  in  view,  which 
obviously  was,  not  the  avoidance  of  dangers  to  our  seamen^ 
vessels,  and  merchandise,  but  to  injure  Great  Britain,  and 
benefit  Bonaparte.  It  would  not  benefit  him  if  we  were 
to  go  to  war  with  Great  Britain,  because  such  a  war 
must  be  to  a  great  extent  a  war  upon  the  ocean,  and  we 
had  no  ships  to  meet  her  there.  If  we  submitted  to  the 
terms  which  Great  Britain  demanded,  it  would  be  nothing 
less  than  paying  tribute  to  her,  which  would  aid  her  in  car- 
rying on  her  war  with  France,  and  therefore  would  be 
injurious  to  his  majesty  the  Emperor,  and  would  give  him 
just  cause  of  complaint  against  us.  "  He  (that  is  Bona- 
parte) concludes,  as  every  rational  man  mvst,  that  the  em- 
bargo, the  only  remaining  alternative,  was  a  tcise  jneasure^ 
In  what  respect  wise  f  Not  for  the  protection  of  our  sea- 
men, vessels,  and  merchandise,  for  neither  of  them  are 
alluded  to  in  these  remarks,  but  wise  for  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  intended — to  benefit  France,  and  injure  Great 

Britain,  i 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  letter  from  Mr.  Livingston, 
to  which  tKe  foregoing  is  an  answer,  was  not  published.  It 
might  have  disclosed  other  facts  and  circumstances  besides 
those  mentioned  and  referred  to  in  the  answer.  But  the 
latter  contains  clear  and  unquestionable  evidence,  that  in 


HARTFORD    COxWENTION.  99 

the  adoption  of  this  measure  it  was  the  object  of  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson to  throw  the  weight  of  this  country,  as  far  as  he  then 
dared  to  venture,  into  the  scale  of  France,  and  against 
that  of  Great  Britain.  It  appears  in  Bonaparte's  opinion, 
as  well  as  his  own,  that  the  best,  and  indeed  the  only  thing 
we  could  then  do  to  aid  the  French,  in  their  warfare 
against  Great  Britain,  was  to  establish  an  embargo.  Ac- 
cordingly Mr.  Jefferson  recommended  such  a  measure. 
But  in  bringing  it  before  Congress  he  not  only  concealed 
his  real  motives  in  doing  it,  but  he  gave  to  Congress  false 
reasons  for  introducing  it  to  their  consideration.  Such 
conduct,  when  detected,  and  exposed,  would  destroy  all 
confidence  in  any  man,  in  the  relations  of  private  life.  It 
is  far  more  dangerous,  and  more  to  be  condemned  in  the 
ruler  of  a  great  nation,  whose  influence  must  of  necessity 
be  great,  and  whose  example  cannot  fail  to  produce  a  pow- 
erful effect  upon  the  community  at  large.  But  the  oppor- 
tunity to  prosecute  his  favourite  political  system  towards 
the  two  great  hostile  nations  of  Europe  was  too  flattering 
to  be  lost,  and  he  improved  it  in  the  manner  that  has  been 
related.  He  did  all  he  could,  in  a  secret  manner,  to  for- 
ward the  views  and  promote  the  interests  of  France,  and 
to  injure  and  depress  those  of  Great  Britain. 

5  Mr.  Jefferson's  caution  to  Mr.  Livingston  on  the  pro- 
priety on  his  part  of  observing  secrecy  with  respect  to  the 
remarks  of  Bonaparte,  on  the  subject  of  the  policy  of  our 
government  towards  Great  Britain  and  France,  was  strik- 
ingly characteristic.  The  principles  advanced  by  the  em- 
peror are  acknowledged  to  be  sound ;  and  should  circum- 
stances arise,  which  may  offer  advantages  to  our  country 
in  making  them  public,  we  shall  avail  ourselves  of  them. 
But  as  it  is  not  usual,  nor  agreeable  to  governments  to 
bring  their  conversations  before  the  public,  I  think  it  will 
be  well  to  consider  this  on  your  part  as  confidential,  leav- 
ing to  the  government  to  retain  or  make  it  public,  as  the 
public  good  may  require."     That  he  should  not  lie  desir- 


100  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ous  of  having  this  decisive  evidence  of  Bonaparte's  opinion 
in  favour  of  the  embargo,  in  preference  to  any  other  course 
which  the  case  presented,  and  the  irresistible  presumption 
which  the  conversation  furnishes  that  our  administration 
were  shaping  their  measures  in  such  a  manner  as  to  pro- 
mote the  interests  of  France,  published  to  the  country, 
and  the  world,  is  not  strange.  It  would  ill  comport  with 
the  professions  which  our  government  were  constantly 
making  of  impartiality  between  the  two  belligerent  pow- 
ers, and  certainly  furnish  Great  Britain  with  unanswera- 
ble reasons  for  treating  us*  as  a  secret  and  insidious 
enemy,   j 

'  And  as  a  decisive  proof  of  the  entire  and  absolute  sub- 
serviency of  Mr.  Jefferson's  feelings  as  well  as  conduct  to 
Bonaparte's  policy  and  interests,  he  says — "  Had  the  em- 
peror gone  further,  and  said  that  he  condemned  our  vessels 
going  voluntarily  into  his  ports  in  breach  of  his  municipal 
laws,  we  might  have  admitted  it  rigorously  legal,  though 
not  friendly."  This,  it  is  presumed,  was  the  principle  on 
which  Bonaparte  acted,  when  under  his  Rambouillet  de- 
cree, he  sequestered  and  confiscated,  for  the  benefit  of  his 
privy  purse,  the  immense  amount  of  American  property 
which  was  in  his  ports  at  the  time  that  decree  was  pro- 
mulgated, and  for  which  he  never  made  any  remuneration, 
considering  it  undoubtedly  as  "  rigorously  legaV 

But  what  must  bethought  of  the  nature  and  strength  of 
Mr.  Jefferson's  devoted  attachment  to  France,  when  in  his 
private  intercourse  and  communications  with  his  confi- 
dential friends,  he  makes  use  of  such  language  as  that  in 
the  closing  part  of  this  letter — "  But  his  condemnation  of 
our  vessels  taken  on  the  high  seas  by  his  privateers,  and 
carried  involuntarily  into  his  ports,  is  justifiable  by  no  law, 
is  piraci/,^^  In  all  the  complaints  against  Great  Britain, 
nothing  has  been  alledged  of  a  more  aggravated  character 
than  this.  And  yet,  the  general  spirit  and  tenor  of  the 
correspondence  with  France,  on  the  subject  of  her  decrees, 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  101 

and  the  depredations  upon  our  commerce  under  them, 
was,  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr. 
Madison,  tame,  abject,  and  supplicatory,  obviously  dictated 
by  strong  apprehensions  of  giving  offence,  and  expressed 
under  the  influence  of  servility  and  fear. 

Mr.  Madison  came  into  office  in  March,  1809.  Mr. 
Jefferson  had  bequeathed  to  him  a  series  of  difficulties  and 
embarrassments  v\^ith  Great  Britain,  from  which  it  was  a 
perplexing  task  to  extricate  the  country,  and  which,  if 
suffered  to  remain  in  the  predicament  they  were  in  at  the 
time  he  left  the  presidency,  could  scarcely  fail  to  involve  it 
in  deeper  calamities.  It  has  been  shown  in  what  manner 
the  negotiation  with  Mr.  Rose  was  defeated  by  an  attempt 
to  induce  him  to  transcend  his  instructions,  and  take  up 
controversies  to  which  they  did  not  extend.  Upon  Mr. 
Madison's  accession  to  the  government,  the  British  minister 
in  this  country  was  the  honourable  David  M.  Erskine,  son 
of  Lord  Chancellor  Erskine,  a  member  of  the  Whig  cabi- 
net under  Mr.  Fox's  administration.  This  gentleman  was 
inexperienced  in  diplomatic  services,  and  was  not  distin- 
guished by  any  uncommon  talents,  natural  or  acquired ; 
but  that  he  was  extremely  desirous  of  adjusting  the  diffi- 
culties between  the  two  countries,  cannot  be  doubted.  On 
the  17th  of  April,  1809,  about  six  weeks  after  Mr.  Madi- 
son's inauguration  as  President  of  the  United  States,  he 
addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Smith,  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy — 

"  Washington,  April  17th,  1809. 

**  Sir, — I  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that  I  have 
received  his  majesty's  commands,  to  represent  to  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  that  his  majesty  is  ani- 
mated by  the  most  sincere  desire  for  an  adjustment  of  the 
differences  which  have  unhappily  so  long  prevailed  between 
the  two  countries,  the  recapitulation  of  which  might  have 


102  HISTORY    OF   THE 

a  tendency  to  impede,  if  not  prevent  an  amicable  under- 
standing. 

"  It  having  been  represented  to  his  majesty's  govern- 
ment, that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  their  pro- 
ceedings at  the  opening  of  the  last  session,  had  evinced  an 
intention  of  passing  certain  laws,  which  would  place  the 
relations  of  Great  Britain  with  the  United  States  upon  an 
equal  footing,  in  all  respects,  with  the  other  belligerent 
powers  ;  I  have  accordingly  received  his  majesty's  com- 
mands, in  the  event  of  such  laws  taking  place,  to  offer  on 
the  part  of  his  majesty,  an  honourable  reparation  for  the 
aggression  committed  by  a  British  naval  officer  in  the 
attack  on  the  United  States  frigate  Chesapeake. 

"Considering  the  act  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  on  the  1st  of  March,  (usually  termed  the 
non-intercourse  act)  as  having  produced  a  state  of  equa- 
lity in  the  relations  of  the  two  belligerent  powers  with 
respect  to  the  United  States,  I  have  to  submit,  conforma- 
bly to  instructions,  for  the  consideration  of  the  American 
government,  such  terms  of  satisfaction  and  reparation,  as 
his  majesty  is  induced  to  believe  will  be  accepted  in  the 
same  spirit  of  conciliation  with  which  they  are  proposed. 
''  In  addition  to  the  prompt  disavowal  made  by  his  ma- 
jesty, on  being  apprized  of  the  unauthorized  act  committed 
by  his  naval  officer,  whose  recall,  as  a  mark  of  the  king's 
displeasure,  from  an  highly  important  and  honourable 
command  immediately  ensued  ;  his  majesty  is  willing  to 
restore  the  men  forcibly  taken  out  of  the  Chesapeake,  and 
if  acceptable  to  the  American  government,  to  make  a 
suitable  provision  for  the  unfortunate  sufferers  on  that 
occasion." 

This  letter  was  answered  by  the  Secretary  of  State  on 
the  same  day,  and  the  propositions  were  accepted  by  the 
government.  On  the  following  day,  viz.  the  18th  of  April, 
Mr  Erskine  addressed  a  second  letter  to  Mr.  Smith,  in 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION. 

which,  after  alluding  to  what  had    previously   occurred, 
added  the  following — 

(**  On  these  grounds  and  expectations,  I  am  instructed  to 
communicate  to  the  American  government,  his  majesty's 
determination  of  sending  to  the  United  States  an  envoy 
extraordinary,  invested  with  full  powers  to  conclude  a 
treaty  on  all  the  points  of  the  relations  between  the  twa 
countries.    * 

\"  In  the  mean  time,  with  a  view  to  contribute  to  the 
attainment  of  so  desirable  an  object,  his  majesty  would  be 
willing  to  withdraw  his  orders  in  council  of  January  and 
November  1807,  so  far  as  respects  the  United  States,  in 
the  persuasion  that  the  President  would  issue  a  proclama- 
tion for  the  renewal  of  the  intercourse  with  Great  Britain, 
and  that  whatever  difference  of  opinion  should  arise  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  terms  of  such  an  agreement,  will  be 
removed  in  the  proposed  negotiation." 

On  the  same  day  Mr.  Smith  wrote  the  following  letter 
to  Mr.  Erskine — 

^'Department  of  State,  April  ISth,  1809. 

"  Sir, — The  note  which  I  had  the  honour  of  receiving 
from  you  this  day,  I  lost  no  time  in  laying  before  the  Pre- 
sident, who  being  sincerely  desirous  of  a  satisfactory 
adjustment  of  the  differences  unhappily  existing  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  has  authorized  me  to 
assure  you,  that  he  will  meet  with  a  disposition  correspon- 
dent with  that  of  his  Britannick  majesty,  the  determination 
of  his  majesty  to  send  to  the  United  States  a  special  envoy, 
invested  with  full  powers  to  conclude  a  treaty  on  all  the 
points  of  the  relations  between  the  two  countries. 

"I  am  further  authorized  to  assure  you,  that  in  case  his 
Britannick  majesty  should,  in  the  mean  time,  withdraw 
his  orders  in  council  of  January  and  November,  1807,  so 
far  as  respects  the  United  States,  the  President  will  not 
fail  to  issue  a  proclamation  by  virtue  of  the  authority,  and 


104  HISTORY   OF    THE 

for  the  purposes  specified  in  the  eleventh  section  of  the 
statute,  commonly  called  the  non-intercourse  act.'* 

To  this,  on  the  succeeding  day,  the  following  answer 
was  returned  by  Mr.  Erskine — 

"  Washington,  April  19th,  1809. 

**  Sir, — In  consequence  of  thp  acceptance,  by  the  Pre- 
sident, as  stated  in  your  letter  dated  the  18th  inst.  of  the 
proposals  made  by  me  on  the  part  of  his  majesty,  in  my 
letter  of  the  same  day,  for  the  renewal  of  the  intercourse 
between  the  respective  countries,  I  am  authorized  to  de- 
clare that  his  majesty's  orders  in  council  of  January  and 
November,  1807,  will  have  been  withdrawn,  as  respects  the 
United  States  on  the  10th  day  of  June  next." 

On  the  same  day  Mr.  Smith  replied  in  the  following 
letter — 

"  Department  of  State,  April  19,  1809. 

**  Sir, — Having  laid  before  the  President  your  note  of 
this  day,  containing  an  assurance,  that  his  Britannick 
majesty  will,  on  the  tenth  day  of  June  next,  have  with- 
drawn his  orders  in  council  of  January  and  November, 
1807,  so  far  as  respects  the  United  States,  I  have  the 
honour  of  informing  you  that  the  President  will  accordingly, 
and  in  pursuance  of  the  eleventh  section  of  the  statute, 
commonly  called  the  non-intercourse  act,  issue  a  procla- 
mation, so  that  the  trade  of  the  United  States  with  Great 
Britain  may  on  the  same  day  be  renewed,  in  the  manner 
provided  in  the  said  section." 

In  pursuance  of  this  arrangement  with  the  British  Envoy, 
the  following  document  was  issued  on  the  same  day — 

"  By  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

"A   PROCLAMATION. 
**  Whereas  it  is  provided  by  the  11th  section  of  the  act 


HARTFORP   CONVENTION.  |05 

tff  Congress,  entitled  '  An  act  to  interdict  the  commercial 
intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
ftod  France,  and  their  dependencies,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses; that  in  case  either  France  or  Great  Britain  shall 
so  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts,  as  that  they  shall  cease  to 
violate  the  neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States ;'  the 
President  is  authorized  to  declare  the  same  by  proclama- 
tion, after  which  the  trade  suspended  by  the  said  act,  and  by 
an  act  laying  an  embargo  on  all  ships  and  vessels  in  the 
ports  and  harbours  of  the  United  States,  and  the  several 
acts  supplementary  thereto,  may  be  renewed  with  the  na- 
tion so  doing.  And  whereas  the  Honourable  David  Mon- 
tague Erskine,  his  Britannick  majesty's  envoy  extraordina- 
ry and  minister  plenipotentiary,  has  by  the  order  and  in  the 
name  of  his  sovereign  declared  to  this  government,  that 
the  British  orders  in  council  of  January  and  November, 
1807,  will  have  been  withdrawn,  as  respects  the  United 
States,  on  the  10th  day  of  June  next. 

"  Now  therefore,  I,  James  Madison,  President  of  the 
United  States,  do  hereby  proclaim,  that  the  orders  in  coun- 
cil aforesaid,  will  have  been  withdrawn  on  the  said  tenth 
day  of  June  next ;  after  which  day  the  trade  of  the  United 
States  with  Great  Britain,  as  suspended  by  the  act  of  Con- 
gress abovementioned,  and  an  act  laying  an  embargo  on 
all  ships  and  vessels  in  the  ports  and  harbours  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  several  acts  supplementary  thereto,  may 
he  renewed. 

"  Given  under  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  the  United  States, 
at  Washington,  the  19th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1809,  and  of 
the  independence  of  the  United  States  the  thirty-third. 

''James  Madison. 

"  By  the  President.     R.  Smith,  Secretary  of  State." 

The  news  of  this  arrangement  was  received  throughout 

the  Union  with  the  highest  degree  of  gratification ;  and 

the  general  exultation  furnished  decisive  evidence  of  the 

14 


106  HISTORY  OF  THE 

Strong  desire  of  all  descriptions  of  persons  and  a  great 
proportion  of  the  politicians,  to  be  at  peace  with  Great 
Britain.  In  order  to  adapt  the  laws  to  the  new  state  of 
things,  Congress  were  convened  in  May  following,  and  in 
addressing  his  message  to  both  Houses,  the  President  in- 
formed them  that  it  afforded  him  much  satisfaction  to  be 
able  to  communicate  the  commencement  of  a  favourable 
change  in  our  foreign  relations  ;  the  critical  state  of  which 
had  induced  a  session  of  Congress  at  that  early  period. 
After  recapitulating  what  had  occurred  in  regard  to  the 
arrangement  with  Mr.  Erskine,  the  message  says, 

"  The  revision  of  our  commercial  laws,  proper  to  adapt 
them  to  the  arrangement  which  has  taken  place  with  Great 
Britain^  will  doubtless  engage  the  early  attention  of  Con- 
gress." 

i  In  pursuance  of  this  recommendation  the  laws  neces- 
sary for  the  occasion  were  passed,  and  the  country  was 
gratified  with  the  prospect  of  an  unshackled  and  undis- 
turbed prosecution  of  their  commercial  pursuits.  In  a 
short  time,  however,  intelligence  was  received,  that  the 
British  government  had  disclaimed  the  arrangement,  on 
the  broad  ground  that  their  agent  had  violated  his  instruc- 
tions, and  that  the  negociation  was  carried  on,  and  the 
arrangement  concluded,  without  authority ;  and  in  conse- 
quence thereof  the  minister  was  recalled^  Upon  receiving 
this  information,  a  second  proclamation  was  issued,  bear- 
ing date  the  3rd  of  August,  3809,  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  declaring  that  the  orders  in  council  had  not 
been  withdrawn,  agreeably  to  the  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Erskine,  and  therefore  the  acts  of  Congress  which  had 
been  suspended,  were  to  be  considered  as  in  force.  \ 

It  has  just  been  remarked,  that  the  arrangement,  the 
history  of  which  has  been  given,  was  rejected  by  the  Brit- 
ish government,  on  the  ground  that  Mr.  Erskine  trans- 
cended, or  violated  his  instructions.  It  is  understood  to 
be  the  fact,  not  only  with  reference  to  Great  Britain,  but 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  107 

Other  countries,  for  governments  to  withhold  their  sanc- 
tions from  treaties  and  conventions  concluded  in  this  man- 
ner. The  principle  is  recognized  by  our  government. 
And  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  such  must  he  the  case,  or 
there  would  be  no  security  in  the  negotiations  between 
governments.  Like  all  other  acts  under  delegated  au- 
thority, it  is  binding  on  the  principal  when  performed 
within  the  scope  of  the  commission  granted  to  the  agent. 
^  An  inquiry  necessarily  arises  here,  whether  our  govern- 
ment were  acquainted  with  the  extent  of  Mr.  Erskine's 
instructions,  before,  or  at  the  time  of  the  negotiation.  The 
dates  of  the  correspondence  between  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  Mr.  Erskine  show,  that  the  business  was  hurried 
in  a  very  extraordinary  manner.  The  letters  on  both  sides 
were  all  written,  the  arrangement  concluded,  and  the  pro- 
clamation founded  upon  that  arrangement,  was  issued  in 
the  course  of  three  days.  On  the  31st  of  July,  1809,  Mr. 
Erskine  communicated  to  Mr.  Smith,  Secretary  of  State, 
the  information  that  the  British  government  had  not  con- 
firmed the  arrangement ;  at  the  same  time,  expressing  the 
conviction  which  he  entertained  at  the  time  of  making  it, 
that  he  had  conformed  to  his  majesty's  wishes,  and  to  the 
spirit  at  least  of  his  instructions.  On  the  9th  of  August 
the  Secretary  of  State  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Erskine, 
requesting  an  explanation  of  some  communications  con- 
tained in  a  letter  from  him  to  his  government,  respecting 
conversations  with  Mr.  Madison,  Mr.  Gallatin,  and  Mr. 
Smith,  on  the  affairs  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Bri- 
tain ;  and  after  noticing  several  distinct  subjects  of  inquiry 
relating  to  these  conversations,  he  says — "  I,  however, 
would  remark,  that  had  you  deemed  it  proper  to  have  com- 
municated in  extenso  this  letter,  [from  Mr.  Canning  to  Mr. 
Erskine,]  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  President 
to  have  perceived  in  its  conditions,  or  in  its  spirit,  that  con- 
ciliatory disposition  which  had  been  professed,  and  which, 
it  was  hoped,  had  really  existed."     Mr.  Erskine  replied  to 


108  HISTORY  OF  THE 

this  letter  of  Mr.  Smith,  on  the  14th  of  August,  and  in 
the  course  of  his  answer,  after  having  noticed  the  several 
subjects  of  inquiry,  he  said — "  Under  these  circumstances, 
therefore,  finding  that  I  could  not  obtain  the  recognitions 
specified  in  Mr.  Canning's  despatch,  of  the  23d  of  January, 
(which  formed  but  one  part  of  his  instructions  to  me,)  in  the 
formal  manner  required,  I  considered  that  it  would  be  in 
vain  to  lay  before  the  government  of  the  United  States  the 
despatch  in  question,  which  I  was  at  liberty  to  have  done 
in  extenso  had  I  thought  proper :  but  as  I  had  such  strong 
grounds  for  believing  that  the  object  of  his  majesty's  go- 
vernment could  be  attained,  though  in  a  different  manner, 
and  the  spirit,  at  least,  of  my  several  letters  of  instructions 
be  fully  complied  with,  I  felt  a  thorough  conviction  upon 
my  mind,  that  I  should  be  acting  in  conformity  with  his 
majesty's  wishes,  and  accordingly  concluded  the  late  pro- 
visional agreement  on  his  majesty's  behalf  with  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States." 

These  remarks,  on  the  one  side  and  the  other,  are  doubt- 
less intended  to  convey  the  idea,  that  at  the  time  of  the 
negotiation,  and  until  after  the  conclusion  of  the  arrange- 
ment, our  government  were  not  made  acquainted  with  the 
nature  and  extent  of  Mr.  Erskine's  instructions,  but  that 
they  depended  on  his  understanding  of  both.  Among  the 
documents  connected  with  this  subject,  is  a  letter,  dated 
May  27,  1809,  from  Mr.  Canning  to  Mr.  Pinkney,  the 
United  States  minister  at  London,  in  which  is  the  following 
passage — 

"  Having  had  the  honour  to  read  to  you  in  extenso^  the 
instructions  with  which  Mr.  Erskine  was  furnished,  it  is 
not  necessary  for  me  to  enter  into  any  explanation  of  those 
points  in  which  Mr.  Erskine  has  acted  not  only  not  in  con- 
formity, but  in  direct  contradiction  to  them." 

From  this  passage  it  is  apparent,  that  our  government 
were,  or  might  have  been  made  acquainted  with  the  nature 
and  extent  of  Mr.  Erskine's  instructions.  It  was  so  clearly 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  10^ 

their  duty  to  have  ascertained  this  most  important  point, 
before  entering  on  the  negotiation,  that  it  is  not  easy  to 
imagine  they  could  have  passed  it  by,  unless  there  were 
specific  reasons  for  their  remaining  in  ignorance  concern- 
ing them.  It  has  been  seen,  that  in  the  negotiation  with 
Mr.  Rose,  notwithstanding  his  instructions  were  strictly 
confined  to  a  single  object,  and  this  fact  was  distinctly  made 
known  to  Mr.  Monroe  before  Mr.  Rose  left  England,  and 
as  distinctly  communicated  to  our  government  after  his 
arrival,  and  before  the  negotiation  was  opened,  still,  with 
a  full  knowledge  of  this  fact,  immediately  upon  entering 
upon  a  discussion  of  the  subject  of  Mr.  Rose's  mission,  the 
first  attempt  of  the  Secretary  of  State  was  to  draw  him 
into  a  consideration  of  other  subjects  of  controversy,  which 
were  not  only  not  included  in  his  commission,  but  which 
he  was  expressly  prohibited  from  discussing.  And  this 
was  attempted  with  a  perfect  knowledge  on  the  part  of 
our  government,  that  if  a  treaty,  or  an  arrangement  had 
been  entered  into  by  Mr.  Rose,  in  violation  of  his  instruc- 
tions, his  government  would  disclaim  it,  even  if  it  should 
not  otherwise  be  objectionable.  No  explanation  can  be 
given  for  this  course  of  conduct  on  the  part  of  our  govern- 
ment, except  the  plain,  and  as  it  is  believed  undeniable 
fact,  that  they  did  not  wish  to  adjust  the  difficulties  be- 
tween the  two  nations.  In  consequence  of  the  determi- 
nation by  our  government  not  to  negotiate,  unless  Mr. 
Rose  would  violate  his  instructions,  and  extend  the  nego- 
tiation to  topics  not  included  in  his  commission,  it  was  dis- 
continued, and  reparation  in  the  matter  of  the  Leopard 
and  the  Chesapeake  left  undecided. 

In  the  case  of  Mr.  Erskine,  the  negotiation  was  one  of 
great  importance.  Mr.  Madison  had  just  entered  upon 
the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son had  left  the  government  surrounded  with  difficulties 
and  embarrassments.  The  foreign  commerce  of  the  coun- 
try, under  the  system  of  embargo  and  non-intercourse. 


110  HISTORY   OF   THE 

was  destroyed,  and  all  the  various  branches  of  domestic . 
industry — agricultural,  mercantile,  and  mechanical,  were 
in  a  state  of  deep  depression,  or  stagnation ;  and  the  com- 
munity were  becoming  very  uneasy  under  privations  which 
were  not  only  unnecessary,  but  extremely  injurious  and 
oppressive.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  a  stroke  of 
good  policy'inhim,  at  his  entrance  upon  the  duties  of  chief 
magistrate,  to  excite  popular  feeling  in  favour  of  his  ad- 
ministration ;  and  nothing  would  be  more  likely  to  produce 
such  an  effect,  than  the  adoption  of  measures  which  would 
relieve  the  nation  from  the  multiplied  evils  of  the  restric- 
tive policy.  And  it  required  no  extraordinary  degree  of 
foresight  to  discern,  that  if  such  an  arrangement  as  was 
contemplated  with  Mr.  Erskine  should  be  accomplished, 
that  it  would  be  cordially  welcomed  throughout  the  coun- 
try, and  render  the  new  chief  magistrate  universally  popu- 
lar. At  the  same  time,  if  the  arrangement  should  be  re- 
jected by  the  British  government,  whatever  the  cause  for 
refusing  to  ratify  it  might  be,  it  could  hardly  fail  to  rouse 
a  spirit  of  resentment  in  the  United  States,  of  a  propor- 
tionate extent  with  the  gratification  which  the  adjustment 
had  excited. 

The  chances  of  a  favourable  result  towards  the  popula- 
rity of  the  administration  were  altogether  in  their  favour. 
If  Mr.  Erskine's  instructions  should,  upon  being  disclosed, 
warrant  the  arrangement,  the  measure  would  be  hailed  as 
highly  beneficial  to  the  country.  If  not,  and  the  treaty 
should  be  rejected  by  Great  Britain,  the  indignation  of  our 
country  would  be  raised  to  a  high  pitch  against  that  govern- 
ment, and  would  open  an  easy  way  to  such  further  mea- 
sures as  our  government  might  think  proper  to  adopt.  If 
the  extent  of  the  instructions  was  known  to  our  govern- 
ment, before  entering  upon  the  negotiation,  the  subsequent 
proceedings  were  a  fraud  upon  the  nation.  If  it  was  not 
known,  it  was  a  most  culpable  omission  on  the  part  of  the 
administration  to  engage  in  the  negotiation  in  a  state  of 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  Ill 

ignorance  respecting  this  indispensable  fact,  because  the 
consequences  could  not,  in  the  event  of  a  want  of  autho- 
rity, be  otherwise  than  injurious  to  the  nation. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  induce  Mr.  Erskine  to  say  that 
he  had  not  disclosed  his  instructions.  His  answer  is  equi- 
vocal, and  leaves  the  point  undecided.  Whether  he  did 
or  did  not,  does  not  seem  to  be  a  matter  of  much  impor- 
tance. They  were  shown  to  Mr.  Pinkney  in  London,  in 
extenso ;  and  it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  he  could 
have  failed  to  communicate  their  contents  to  the  govern- 
ment at  Washington.  If  known  to  them,  the  course  pur- 
sued by  them  was  in  the  highest  degree  unworthy,  and  de- 
ceptive, because  they  must  have  known  that  any  arrange- 
ment made  in  violation  of  instructions  would  be  rejected 
for  that  reason  only,  if  there  had  been  no  other.  Nor  can 
any  good  excuse  be  given  for  that  ignorance,  if  it  actually 
existed.  The  government  ought  to  have  known  the  ex- 
tent of  the  minister's  powers  before  they  entered  upon  the 
negotiation. 

The  rejection  of  the  arrangement  by  the  British,  though 
declared  to  be  upon  the  ground  of  a  departure  from,  or  a 
violation  of  instructions,  produced  its  natural  effects  in  the 
country.  Upon  receiving  intelligence  of  the  fact,  the  Pre- 
sident issued  his  proclamation,  declaring  the  non-inter- 
course laws  again  in  force  :  the  feelings  of  the  community 
were  greatly  excited,  and  a  strong  spirit  of  resentment  was 
enl^indled  towards  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Erskine  having  been  recalled,  Mr.  Francis  James   J  /  a 
Jackson  was  sent  to  the  United  States  as  his  successor. 


The  date  of  the  first  correspondence  with  him  is  prefixed 
to  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  of  the  9th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1809.  \  In  this  letter,  the  Secretary  adverts  to  certain 
conversations  which  had  taken  place  between  him  and 
Mr.  Jackson,  and  states  what  he  understood  to  be  the  pur- 
port of  them;  and  adds,  that  "  To  avoid  the  misconcep- 
tions incident  to  oral  proceedings,  I  have  also  the  honour 


I'- 


112  HISTORY    OF   THE 

to  intimate  that  it  is  thought  expedient  that  our  further  dis- 
cussions on  the  present  occasion  be  in  the  written  form." 
Mr.  Jackson  protested  against  this  determination,  as  un- 
precedented in  the  annals  of  diplomacy,  but  consented  to 
go  on  with  the  business  of  his  mission,  rather  than  to  have 
it  suspended  until  he  could  send  home  for  further  direc- 
tions. In  the  course  of  his  letter  he  remarks — ^'It  was 
not  known  when  I  left  England,  whether  Mr.  Erskine  had, 
according  to  the  liberty  allowed  him,  communicated  to 
you  in  txtenso  his  original  instructions.  It  now  appears 
that  he  did  not.  But  in  reverting  to  his  official  correspon- 
dence, and  particularly  to  a  despatch  addressed  on  the 
20th  of  April  to  his  majesty's  Secretary  of  State  for 
foreign  affairs,  I  find  that  he  there  states,  that  he  had 
submitted  to  your  consideration  the  three  conditions  spe 
cified  in  those  instructions,  as  the  groundwork  of  an  ar- 
rangement which,  according  to  information  received  from 
this  country,  it  was  thought  in  England  might  be  made 
with  a  prospect  of  great  mutual  advantage.  Mr.  Erskine 
then  reports  verbatim  et  seriatim  your  observations  upon 
each  of  the  three  conditions,  and  the  reasons  which  induced 
you  to  think  that  others  might  be  substituted  in  lieu  of 
them.  It  may  have  been  concluded  between  you  that  these 
latter  were  an  equivalent  for  the  original  conditions ;  but 
the  very  a-ct  of  substitution  evidently  shows  that  those  origi- 
nal conditions  were  in  fact  very  explicitly  communicated 
to  you,  and  by  you  of  course  laid  before  the  President  for 
his  consideration.  I  need  hardly  add,  that  the  difference 
between  these  conditions  and  those  contained  in  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  18th  and  19th  of  April,  is  sufficiently 
obvious  to  require  no  elucidation ;  nor  need  I  draw  the 
conclusion,  which  I  consider  as  admitted  by  all  absence  of 
complaint  on  the  part  of  the  American  government,  viz. 
that  under  such  circumstances  his  majesty  had  an  undoubt- 
ed and  incontrovertible  right  to  disavow  the  act  of  his 
minister.     I  must  here  allude  to  a  supposition  which  you 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  113 

have  more  than  once  mentioned  to  me,  and  by  which,  if  it 
had  any  the  sUghtest  foundation,  this  right  might,  perhaps, 
have  been  in  some  degree  aiFected.  You  have  informed 
me  that  you  understood  that  Mr.  Erskine  had  two  sets  of 
instructions,  by  which  to  regulate  his  conduct ;  and  that 
upon  one  of  them,  which  had  not  been  communicated 
either  to  you  or  to  the  pubHck,  was  to  be  rested  the  justi- 
fication of  the  terms  finally  agreed  upon  between  you  and 
him.  It  is  my  duty,  Sir,  solemnly  to  declare  to  you,  and 
through  you  to  the  President,  that  the  despatch  from  Mr. 
Canning  to  Mr.  Erskine,  which  you  have  made  the  basis  of 
an  official  correspondence  with  the  latter  minister,  and 
which  was  read  by  the  former  to  the  American  minister  in 
London,  is  the  only  despatch  by  which  the  conditions  were 
prescribed  to  Mr.  Erskine  for  the  conclusion  of  an  arrange- 
ment with  this  country  on  the  matter  to  which  it  relates." 
A  very  long  letter  from  Mr.  Smith,  Secretary  of  State, 
in  answer  to  Mr.  Jackson,  bears  date  October  19.  It  is  a 
laboured  attempt  to  obtain  a  diplomatic  victory  over  the 
British  ambassador,  on  the  subjects  of  dispute  between  the 
two  governments.  But  the  latter  appears  to  have  been 
thoroughly  versed  in  his  business  ;  and  no  advantage  was 
gained  over  him  by  Mr.  Secretary  Smith,  in  the  argu- 
ment. Owing  perhaps  to  the  disappointment  which  was 
experienced  from  this  quarter,  or  to  the  long  continuance 
of  the  discussion,  more  warmth  of  feeling  began  to  be 
manifest.  The  controversy,  at  length,  seemed  to  turn 
upon  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  instructions  given  by 
the  British  government — whether  Mr.  Erskine  acted 
under  a  limited,  or  what  vraa  called  a  full  power.  It  was 
tjontended  by  Mr.  Smith  that  Mr.  Erskine  supposed  he 
had  authority  to  make  the  arrangement,  and  that  the 
British  government  were  in  hcnour  bound  to  ratify  it.  Mr. 
Jackson,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Smith,  of  the  23d  of  October, 
says — "  I  have,  therefore,  no  hesitation  in  informing  you, 
that  his  majesty  was  pleased  to  disavow  the  agreement 

15 


114^  HISTORY    OF    THE 

concluded  between  you  and  Mr.  Erskine,  because  it  was 
concluded  in  violation  of  that  gentleman's  instructions,  and 
altogether  without  authority  to  subscribe  to  the  terms  of 
it.  These  instructions,  I  now  understand  by  your  letter, 
^  >vell  as  from  the  obvious  deduction  which  I  took  the 
liberty  of  making  in  mine  of  the  11th  inst,  were  at  the 
time,  in  substance,  made  known  to  you;  no  stronger  illus- 
tration, therefore,  can  be  given  of  the  deviation  from  them 
which  occurred,  thaq  by  a  reference  to  the  terms  of  your 
agreement." 

On  the  1st  of  November  the  Secretary  of  State  replied 
t^  Mr.  Jackson.  The  following  i^  an  extrapt  from  his  letter 
"  For  the  first  time  it  is  now  disclosed  that  the  subjects 
arranged  with  this  government  by  your  predecessor,  are 
held  to  be  not  within  the  authority  of  a  minister  plenipo- 
tentiary, and  that  not  having  had  a  '  full  power  distinct  from 
that  authority,  his  transactions  on  those  subjects  might  of 
right  be  disavowed  by  his  government.'  This  disclosure? 
so  contrary  to  every  antecedent  supposition  and  just  in- 
ference, gives  a  new  aspect  to  this  business.  If  the 
authority  of  your  predecessor  did  not  embrace  the  subjects 
in  question,  so  as  to  bind  his  government,  it  necessarily 
follows,  that  the  only  credentials  yet  presented  by  you, 
being  the  same  with  those  presented  by  him,  give  you  no 
authority  to  bind  it ;  and  that  the  exhibition  of  a  '  full 
power'  for  that  purpose,  such  as  you  doubtless  are  furr 
nished  with,  is  become  an  indispensable  preliminary  ta 
fi^rther  negotiation  ;  or  to  speak  more  strictly,  waa  re- 
quired in  the  first  instance  by  the  view  of  the  matter  now 
disclosed  by  you.  Negotiation  without  this  preliminary 
\yould  not  only  be  a  departure  from  the  principle  of  equa- 
lity which  is  the  essential  basis  of  it,  but  would  moreover 
be  a  disregard  of  the  precautions  and  of  the  self-respect 
enjoined  on  the  attention  of  the  United  States  by  the  cir- 
ciimstances  which  have  hitherto  taken  place. 

"1  ne^d  ^arc^Jy  ^d.d,  that  in  tj^  fyll  p.QWei'  alluded  to^ 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  Il5 

as  a  preliminary  to  negotiation,  is  not  intended  to  be  in- 
cluded either  the  whole  extent  or  any  part  of  your  instruc- 
tions for  the  exercise  of  it.  These  of  course,  as  you  havfe 
justly  remarked,  remain  subject  to  your  own  discretion. 

*'  I  abstain  from  making  any  particular  animadversion* 
on  several  irrelevant  and  improper  allusions  in  your  lett©?, 
not  at  all  comporting  with  the  professed  disposition  to 
adjust  in  an  amicuble  manner  the  differences  unhappily 
subsisting  between  the  two  countries.  But  it  would  be 
improper  to  conclude  the  few  observations  to  which  I  pur- 
posely limit  myself,  without  adverting  to  your  repetition  of 
a  language  implying  a  knowledge  on  the  part  of  this 
government  that  the  instructions  of  your  predecessor  did 
not  authorize  the  arrangement  formed  by  him.  After  the 
explicit  and  peremptory  asseveration  that  this  government 
had  no  such  knowledge,  and  that  with  such  a  knowledges 
no  such  arrangement  would  have  been  entered  into,  the 
view  which  you  have  again  presented  of  the  subject,  makes 
it  my  duty  to  apprize  you,  that  such  insinuations  are 
inadmissible  in  the  intercourse  of  a  foreign  minister  with  » 
government  that  understands  what  it  owes  to  itself." 

Mr.  Jackson  replied  to  this  letter  on  the  4th  of  Novem-* 
ber;  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  says-^"  In  his- 
despatch  of  the  23d  of  January,  Mr.  Secretary  Canning'' 
distinctly  says  to  Mr.  Erskine,  'upon  receiving  through 
you,  on  the  part  of  the  American  government,  a  distinct 
and  official  recognition  of  the  three  abovementioned  con- 
ditions, his  majesty  will  lose  no  time  in  sending  to  Ame^ 
rica  a  minister  fully  empowered  to  consign  them  to  a  for-* 
mal  and  regular  treaty.' 

"  This  minister  would,  of  course,  have  been  provideti 
with  a  full  power ;  but  Mr.  Erskine  was  to  be  guided  by 
his  instructions,  and  had  the  agreement  concluded  here 
been  conformable  to  them,  it  would  without  doubt  have^ 
been  ratified  by  his  majesty.  I  must  beg  your  very  parti- 
cular   attention    to   the   circumstance  that  his  majestyV 


116  HISTORY    OF   THE 

ratification  has  been  withheld,  not  because  the  agreement 
was  concluded  without  a  full  power,  but  because  it  was 
altogether  irreconcileable  to  the  instructions  on  which  it 
was  professedly  founded.  The  question  of  the  full  power 
was  introduced  by  yourself  to  give  weight,  by  a  quotation 
from  a  highly  respected  author,  to  your  complaint  of  the 
disavowal ;  in  answer  to  which  I  observed  that  the  quota- 
tion did  not  apply,  as  Mr.  Erskine  had  no  full  power.  Never 
did  I  imagine,  or  any  where  attempt  to  rest,  the  right  of 
disavowal  upon  that  circumstance  :  indubitably  his  agree- 
ment would  nevertheless  have  been  ratified,  had  not  the 
instructions,  which  in  this  case  took  the  place  of  a  full 
power,  been  violated." 

"I  am  concerned  to  be  obliged  a  second  time  to  appeal 
to  those  principles  of  publick  law,  under  the  sanction  and 
protection  of  which  I  was  sent  to  this  country.  Where 
there  is  not  freedom  of  communication  in  the  form  substi- 
tuted for  the  more  usual  one  of  verbal  discussion,  there 
can  be  little  useful  intercourse  between  ministers  ;  and  one, 
at  least,  of  the  epithets,  which  you  have  thought  proper  to 
apply  to  my  last  letter,  is  such  as  necessarily  abridges  that 
freedom.  That  any  thing  therein  contained  may  be  irrele- 
vant to  the  subject,  it  is  of  course  competent  in  you  to  en- 
deavour to  show ;  and  as  far  as  you  succeed  in  so  doing,  in 
so  far  will  my  argument  lose  of  its  validity  ;  but  as  to  the 
propriety  of  my  allusions,  you  must  allow  me  to  acknow- 
ledge only  the  decision  of  my  own  sovereign,  whose  com- 
mands I  obey,  and  to  whom  alone  I  can  consider  myself 
responsible." 

*'  You  will  find  that  in  my  correspondence  with  you,  I 
have  carefully  avoided  drawing  conclusions  that  did  not 
necessarily  follow  from  the  premises  advanced  by  me,  and 
last  of  all  should  I  think  of  uttering  an  insinuation,  where 
I  was  unable  to  substantiate  a  fact.  To  facts,  such  as  I 
have  become  acquainted  with  them,  I  have  scrupulously 
adhered,  and  in  so  doing  I  must  continue,  whenever  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  IIT 

good  faith  of  his  majesty's  government  is  called  in  ques- 
tion, to  vindicate  its  honour  and  dignity  in  the  manner  that 
appears  to  me  best  calculated  for  that  purpose." 

To  this  letter  the  Secretary  of  State  made  the  following 
answer — 

"  Department  of  State,  November  8,  1809. 

**  Sir, — In  my  letter  of  the  19th  ultimo,  I  stated  to  you 
that  the  declaration  in  your  letter  of  the  11th,  that  the  de- 
spatch from  Mr.  Canning  to  Mr.  Erskine.  of  the  23d  of 
January,  was  the  only  despatch  by  which  the  conditions 
were'prescribed  to  Mr.  Erskine  for  the  conclusion  of  an 
arrangement  on  the  matter  to  which  it  related,  was  then 
for  the  first  time  made  to  this  government.  And  it  was 
added  that  if  that  despatch  had  been  communicated  at  the 
time  of  the  arrangement,  or  if  it  had  been  known  that  the 
propositions  contained  in  it,  were  the  only  ones  on  which 
he  was  authorized  to  make  an  arrangement,  the  arrange- 
ment would  not  have  been  made. 

**  In  my  letter  of  the  1st  instant,  adverting  to  the  repe- 
tition in  your  letter  of  the  23d  ultimo,  of  a  language  im- 
plying a  knowledge  in  this  government  that  the  instructions 
of  your  predecessor  did  not  authorize  the  arrangement 
formed  by  him,  an  intimation  was  distinctly  given  to  you 
that,  after  the  explicit  and  peremptory  asseveration  that 
this  government  had  not  any  such  knowledge,  and  that 
with  such  a  knowledge,  such  an  arrangement  would  not 
have  been  made,  no  such  insinuation  could  be  admitted  by 
this  government. 

("  Finding  that  in  your  reply  of  the  4th  instant,  you  have 
used  a  language  which  cannot  be  understood  but  as  reitera- 
ting and  even  aggravating  the  same  gross  insinuation,  it 
only  remains  in  order  to  preclude  opportunities  which  are 
thus  abused,  to  inform  you,  that  no  further  communications  \j 
will  be  received  from  you,  and  that  the  necessity  of  this 
determination  will,  without  delay,  be  made  known  to  your 
government.     In  the  mean  time,  a  ready  attention  will  be 


118  HISTORY    OF   THE 

given  to  any  communications,  affecting  the  interests  of  the 
two  nations,  through  any  other  channel  that  may  be  sub- 
stituted.    I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &/C. 

"R.  Smith." 

y  Great  pains  were  taken  to  excite  the  public  feelings  on 
this  occasion.  Mr.  Jackson  was  accused  of  having  insulted 
the  government,  and  popular  resentment  was  roused  to  so 
high  a  pitch,  that  it  was  coi^sidered  hardly  safe  for  him  to 
travel  through  the  country.  \  On  the  11th  of  November 
the  following  note  was  communicated  to  the  Secretary  of 
State — 

"  Mr.  Oakley,  his  majesty's  secretary  of  legation,  is  de- 
sired by  IVIr.  Jackson  to  state  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
that,  as  Mr.  Jackson  has  been  already  once  most  grossly 
insulted  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Hampton,  in  the 
unprovoked  language  of  abuse  held  by  them  to  several 
officers  bearing  the  king's  uniform,  when  those  officers 
were  themselves  violently  assaulted,  and  put  in  imminent 
danger ;  he  conceives  it  to  be  indispensible  to  the  safety  of 
himself,  of  the  gentlemen  attaehed  to  his  mission,  and  of 
his  family,  during  the  remainder  of  their  stay  in  the  United 
States,  to  be  provided  with  special  passports  or  safe-guards 
from  the  American  government.  This  is  the  more  neces- 
sary, since  some  of  the  newspapers  of  the  United  States  are 
daily  using  language  whose  only  tendency  can  be  to  excite 
the  people  to  commit  violence  upon  Mr.  Jackson's  person." 

Congress  met  in  November ;  and  on  the  29th  of  that 
month  the  President's  message  was  sent  to  both  houses. 
After  giving  a  history  of  the  failure  of  the  arrangement 
with  Mr.  Erskine,  and  mentioning  his  recall,  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  new  minister,  and  referring  to  the  state  of  things 
in  the  attempt  to  open  a  negotiation  with  him,  the  message 
says — The  correspondence  "will  show  also,  that  forgetting 
the^ respect  due  to  all  governments,  he  did  not  refrain  from 
imputations  on  this,  which  required  that  no  further  com mu- 
nicatians  should  be  received  from  him." 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  119 

•  If  there  are  any  persons  who  have  been  well  acquainted 
with  the  course  of  the  administration  under  Mr.  Madison, 
who  believe  that  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  Erskine  was 
made  with  sincerity  and  good  faith  on  the  part  of  our  go- 
vernment, and  with  an  expectation  that  it  would  be  ratified, 
and  carried  into  effect  by  the  British  government,  they  will 
of  course  give  him  credit  for  this  professed  attempt  to  ad-    (,^ 
just  the  difficulties  between  the  two  nations.     But  persons 
of  a  different  description,  who  view  the  whole  proceeding 
as  a  political  manceuvre,  intended  to  gain  popularity  to  a 
new  chief  magistrate  in  the  first  place,  and  in  the  result 
of  its  being  rejected  by  the  British  government,  to  excite 
the  resentment  of  the  country  against  that  government, 
will  come  to  a  different  conclusion, — one  very  far  from 
being  favourable  to  the  frankness  and  political  candour  of 
the  head  of  our  government. 

At  all  events,  it  left  the  subject  of  controversy  between 
the  two  nations,  which  gave  rise  to  the  negotiation,  open 
and  undecided.  Its  consequences  will  be  more  fully  ascer- 
tained hereafter. 

In  the  maritime  war  of  retaliation  which  Great  Britain 
and  France  were  carrying  on  against  each  other  by  decrees 
and  orders  in  council,  it  was  of  course  an  object  of  each  to 
charge  its  origin  upon  the  other.  In  a  letter  from  Count 
Champagny  to  General  Armstrong,  dated  August  22d, 
1809,  he  says — '*  Let  England  revoke  her  declarations  of 
blockade  against  France ;  France  will  revoke  her  decree  of 
blockade  against  England.  Let  England  revoke  her  orders 
in  council  of  the  11th  of  November,  1807,  the  decree  of  Milan 
will  fall  of  itself.  American  commerce  will  then  have  re- 
gained all  i-ts  liberty,  and  it  will  be  sure  of  finding  favour 
and  protection  in  the  ports  of  France.  But  it  is  for  the 
United  States  to  bring  on  these  happy  results.  Can  a  nation 
that  wishes  to  remain  free  and  sovereign,  even  balance  be- 
tween some  temporary  interests,  and  the  great  interests  of 


120  HISTORY    OF    THE 

its  independence,  and  the  maintenance  of  its  honour,  of  its 
sovereignty,  and  of  its  dignity  ?" 

Having  failed  in  the  negotiation  with  Mr.  Erskine,  of 
obtaining  a  revocation  of  the  British  orders  in  council  of 
January  and  November,  1807,  the  President's  proclama- 
tion replaced  the  intercourse  between  the  countries  upon 
the  same  footing  upon  which  it  stood  previously  to  the 
opening  of  that  negotiation.  It  was  then  thought  expe- 
dient by  the  American  government  to  make  an  experi- 
ment with  France,  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  the  govern- 
ment of  that  nation  to  repeal  the  Berlin  and  Milan  de- 
crees. On  the  1st  of  December,  1809,  the  Secretary  of 
State  addressed  a  letter  to  General  Armstrong,  of  which 
the  following  is  an  extract : — 

'*  Inclosed  you  have  five  copies  of  the  President's  mes- 
sage and  of  its  accompanying  documents.  They  will  afford 
you  a  view  of  the  existing  state  of  things  here,  and  parti- 
cularly of  the  ground  taken  in  the  correspondence  of  the 
British  minister.  You  will  perceive  that  the  deliberations 
of  congress  at  their  present  session  cannot  but  be  embar- 
rassed by  the  painful  consideration,  that  the  two  principal 
belligerents  have  been,  for  some  time,  alike  regardless  of 
our  neutral  rights,  and  that  they  manifest  no  disposition  to 
relinquish,  in  any  degree,  their  unreasonable  pretensions. 

"  You  will  also  herewith  receive  a  copy  of  a  letter  to 
Mr.  Pinkney,  which  will  show  the  light  in  which  M. 
Champagny's  letter  is  viewed  by  the  President,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  course  of  proceeding  prescribed  to  our  mi- 
nister in  London.  You  will  of  course  understand  it  to  be 
wished  that  you  should  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the 
French  government,  as  to  the  condition  on  which  it  has 
been  proposed  to  revoke  the  Berlin  decree.  On  the  princi- 
ple which  seems  to  be  assumed  by  M.  Champagny,  nothing 
more  ought  to  be  required  than  a  recall  by  Great  Britain 
of  her  proclamation  or  illegal  blockades,  which  are  of  a 
date  prior  to  that  of  the  Berlin  decree,  or  a  formal  decla- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  121 

\ration  that  they  are  not  now  in  force.  Should  this  be  done 
and  be  followed  by  an  annulment  of  all  the  decrees  and 
orders  in  chronological  order,  and  Great  Britain  should 
afterwards  put  in  force  old,  or  proclaim  new  blockades, 
contrary  to  the  law  of  nations,  it  would  produce  questions 
between  her  and  the  United  States,  which  the  French  go- 
vernment is  bound  to  leave  to  the  United  States,  at  least 
until  it  shall  find  it  necessary  to  bring  forward  complaints 
of  an  acquiescence  on  our  part,  not  consistent  with  the 
neutrality  professed  by  us." 

On  the  25th  of  January,  1810,  General  Armstrong 
wrote  the  following  letter  to  Mr.  Pinkney  : — 

"  A  letter  from  Mr.  Secretary  Smith  of  the  1st  of  De- 
cember last,  made  it  my  duty  to  inquire  of  his  excellency 
the  duke  of  Cadore,  what  were  the  conditions  on  which  his 
majesty  the  emperor  would  annul  his  decree,  commonly 
called  the  Berlin  decree,  and  whether  if  Great  Britain  re- 
voked her  blockades  of  a  date  anterior  to  that  decree,  his 
majesty  would  consent  to  revoke  the  said  decree.  To 
these  questions  I  have  this  day  received  the  following  an- 
swer, which  I  hasten  to  convey  to  you  by  a  special  mes- 
senger. 

ANSWER. 

• "  The  only  condition  required  for  the  revocation,  by  his 
majesty  the  emperor,  of  the  decree  of  Berlin,  will  be  a 
previous  revocation  by  the  British  government  of  her 
blockades  of  France,  or  part  of  France,  [such  as  that  from 
the  Elbe  to  Brest,  ^c]  of  a  date  anterior  to  that  of  the 
aforesaid  decree." 

On  the  28th  of  January,  1810,  General  Armstrong 
wrote  the  following  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

"  In  conformity  to  the  suggestions  contained  in  your 
letter  of  the  first  of  December,  1809, 1  demanded  whether, 
if  Great  Britain  revoked  her  blockades  of  a  date  anterior 
to  the  decree,  commonly  called  the  Berlin  decree,  his  ma- 

16 


122  HISTORY    OF   THE 

jesty  the  emperor  would  consent  to  revoke  the  said  decree.'* 
To  which  the  minister  answered,  that  *'  the  only  condition 
required  for  the  revocation^  by  his  majesty ^  of  the  decree  of 
BerHn,  will  be  a  previous  revocation  by  the  British  go- 
vernment of  her  blockade  of  France,  or  part  of  France, 
[such  as  that  from  the  Elbe  to  Brest,  &c.]  of  a  date  ante- 
rior to  that  of  the  aforesaid  decree  ;  and  that  if  the  British 
government  would  then  recall  the  orders  in  council  which 
had  occasioned  the  decree  of  Milan,  that  decree  should 
also  be  annulled." 

On  the  11th  of  November,  1809,  Mr.  Smith,  Secretary 
of  State,  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Pinkney,  from  which  the 
following  is  an  extract : — 

"  From  the  enclosed  copy  of  a  letter  from  M.  Cham- 
pagny  to  General  Armstrong,  it  appears  that  the  French 
government  has  taken  a  ground  in  relation  to  the  British 
violation  of  our  neutral  rights,  not  the  same  with  that  here- 
tofore taken,  and  which  it  is  proper  you  should  be  ac- 
quainted with.  You  will  observe  that  the  terms  stating 
the  condition  on  which  the  Berlin  decree  will  be  revoked, 
are  not  free  from  obscurity.  They  admit  the  construc- 
tion, however,  that  if  Great  Britain  will  annul  her  illegal 
blockades  as  distinct  from  her  orders  in  council,  such  as  the 
blockade  from  the  Elbe  to  Brest,  &c.  prior  to  the  Berlin 
decree,  and  perhaps  of  subsequent  date,  but  still  distinct 
from  her  orders  in  council,  that  France  will  put  an  end  to 
her  Berlin  decree,  or  at  least  the  illegal  part  of  it.  Whilst 
therefore  it  becomes  important  to  take  proper  steps,  as 
will  be  done,  through  General  Armstrong,  to  ascertain  the 
real  and  precise  meaning  of  M.  Champagny's  letter,  it  is 
important  also  that  your  interposition  should  be  used  to 
ascertain  the  actual  state  of  the  British  blockades,  distinct 
from  the  orders  in  council,  whether  merely  on  paper  or 
otherwise  illegal,  and  whether  prior  or  subsequent  to  the 
Berlin  decree,  and  to  feel  the  pulse  of  the  British  govern- 
ment on  the  propriety  of  putting  them  out  of  the  way,  in 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  128 

order  to  give  force  to  our  call  on  France  to  prepare  the 
way  for  a  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council,  by  her  repeal  of 
that  decree. 

"  In  the  execution  of  this  task,  I  rely  on  the  judgment 
and  delicacy  by  which  I  am  persuaded  you  will  be  guided, 
and  on  your  keeping  in  mind  the  desire  of  this  govern- 
ment to  entangle  itself  as  little  as  possible  in  the  question  of 
priority  in  the  violation  of  our  neutral  rights,  and  to  com- 
mit itself  as  little  as  possible  to  either  belligerent  as  to  the 
course  to  be  taken  with  the  other. 

**  If  it  should  be  found  that  no  illegal  blockades  are  now 
in  force,  and  so  declared  by  Great  Britain,  or  that  the 
British  government  is  ready  to  revoke  and  withdraw  all 
such  as  may  not  be  consistent  with  the  definition  of  block- 
ade in  the  Russian  treaty  of  June,  1801,  it  will  be  desirable 
that  you  lose  no  time  in  giving  the  information  to  General 
Armstrong,  and  whatever  may  be  the  result  of  your  inqui- 
ries, that  you  hasten  a  communication  of  it  to  me." 

It  is  very  apparent  from  the  tenor  of  these  letters,  that 
the  course  which  the  government  was  pursuing,  was  not  a 
little  embairassing  to  them.  The  British  blockade  of 
May,  1806,  was  prior  in  date  to  the  French  decree  of 
Berlin.  And  it  was  an  object  of  great  importance,  in  the 
view  of  the  French  government,  to  have  it  understood,  that 
the  Berlin  decree  was  issued  in  order  to  retaliate  upon  the 
British  government  for  the  blockading  order  abovemen- 
tioned.  But  that  order  had  not  been  considered  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States  as  a  violation  of  their 
neutral  rights,  at  least  so  far  as  to  make  it  the  subject  of 
any  formal  or  serious  complaint.  It  will  be  recollected, 
that  in  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Monroe  and  Mr. 
Fox  in  regard  to  it,  at  the  time  when  the  measure  was 
adopted,  the  former,  as  well  as  the  latter  of  those  states- 
men viewed  it  as  rather  advantageous  to  neutrals  than 
otherwise.  But  after  the  failure  of  the  arrangement  with 
Mr.  Erskine,  it  was  a  matter  of  deep  concern  with  our 


124  HISTORY    OF   THE 

government  to  endeavour  to  adjust  their  difficulties  at  least 
with  France  ;  or  by  attempting  to  play  off  one  of  the 
belligerents  against  the  other,  to  bring  one,  if  not  both  of 
them  to  terms.  For  this  purpose,  General  Armstrong  was 
directed  to  apply  to  the  French  government,  to  ascertain 
on  what  terms  his  imperial  majesty  would  consent  to 
revoke  the  Berlin  decree.  His  instructions,  however, 
made  it  necessary  for  him  to  do  something  more  than  ask 
the  simple  general  question,  on  what  terms  his  majesty  the 
emperor  would  annul  that  decree  ;  he  was  directed  to 
inquire  *'  whether,  if  Great  Britain  revoked  her  blockades 
of  a  date  anterior  to  that  decree,  his  majesty  would  consent 
to  revoke  the  said  decree  ?"  The  only  blockading  order 
of  a  date  prior  to  the  Berlin  decree,  that  appears  to  have 
formed  the  subject  of  complaint  on  the  part  of  France, 
was  that  of  May,  1806.  Of  course,  as  might  have  been, 
and  doubtless  was  expected,  the  answer  to  the  inquiry  was, 
as  has  been  already  cited — "  The  only  condition  required 
for  the  revojcation,  by  his  majesty  the  emperor,  of  the  de- 
cree of  Berlin,  will  be  the  previous  revocation  by  the 
British  government  of  her  blockades  of  France,  or  part  of 
France,  [such  as  that  from  the  Elbe  to  Brest,  &c.]  of  a 
date  anterior  to  the  aforesaid  decree."  It  is  very  easy  to 
see  that  the  correspondence  with  the  British  government, 
under  these  circumstances,  would  be  attended  with  no 
inconsiderable  difficulty. 

In  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Pinkney, 
dated  July  2d,  1810,  he  says — 

'*  As  the  British  government  had  constantly  alleged  that 
the  Berlin  decree  was  the  original  aggression  on  our  neu- 
tral commerce,  that  her  orders  in  council  were  but  a  reta-' 
liation  on  that  decree,  and  had,  moreover,  on  that  ground, 
asserted  an  obligation  on  the  United  States  to  take 
effectual  measures  against  the  decree,  as  a  preliminary  to 
a  repeal  of  the  orders,  nothing  could  be  more  reasonable 
than  to  expect,  that  the  condition,  in  the  shape  last  pre- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  125 

sented,  would  be  readily  accepted.  The  President  is, 
therefore,  equally  disappointed  and  dissatisfied  at  the 
abortiveness  of  your  correspondence  with  Lord  Wellesley 
on  this  important  subject.  He  entirely  approves  the  de- 
termination you  took  to  resume  it,  with  a  view  to  the 
special  and  immediate  obligation  lying  on  the  British 
government  to  cancel  the  illegal  blockades ;  and  you  are 
instructed,  in  case  the  answer  to  your  letter  of  the  30th  of 
April  should  not  be  satisfactory,  to  represent  to  the  British 
government,  in  terms  temperate  but  explicit,  that  the  United 
States  consider  themselves  authorized  by  strict  and  unques- 
tionable right,  as  well  as  supported  by  the  principles  here- 
tofore applied  by  Great  Britain  to  the  case,  in  claiming  and 
expecting  a  revocation  of  the  illegal  blockades  of  France, 
of  a  date  prior  to  that  of  the  Berlin  decree,  as  preparatory 
to  a  further  demand  of  the  revocation  of  that  decree. 

"  It  ought  not  to  be  presumed  that  the  British  govern- 
ment, in  reply  to  such  a  representation,  will  contend  that 
a  blockade,  like  that  of  May,  1806,  from  the  Elbe  to  Brest, 
a  coast  of  not  less  than  one  thousand  miles,  proclaimed 
four  years  since,  without  having  been  at  any  time  attempted 
to  be  duly  executed  by  the  application  of  a  naval  force,  is 
a  blockade  conformable  to  the  law  of  nations  and  consistent 
with  neutral  rights." 

On  the  19th  of  October,  1810,  the  Secretary  of  State 
wrote  again  to  Mr.  Pinkney,  on  the  same  subject.  The 
following  is  an  extract  from  his  letter — 

'<*  Your  despatch  of  the  24th  of  August,  enclosing  a 
newspaper  statement  of  a  letter  from  the  Duke  of  Cadore 
to  General  Armstrong,  notifying  a  revocation  of  the  Berlin  .^  j 
and  Milan  decrees,  has  been  received.  It  ought  not  to  be  ^^' 
doubted  that  this  step  of  the  French  government  will  be 
followed  by  a  repeal,  on  the  part  of  the  British  govern- 
ment, of  its  orders  in  council.  And  if  a  termination  of 
the  crisis  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  be 
really  intended,  the  repeal  ought  to  include  the  system  of 


\. 


126  HISTORY   OF   THE 

paper  blockades,  which  differ  in  name  only  from  the 
retaliatory  system  comprised  in  the  orders  in  council. 
From  the  complexion  of  the  British  prints,  not  to  mention 
other  considerations,  the  paper  blockades  may  however 
not  be  abandoned.  There  is  hence  a  prospect  that  the 
United  States  may  be  brought  to  issue  with  Great  Britain 
on  the  legality  of  such  blockades.  In  such  case,  as  it 
cannot  be  expected  that  the  United  States,  founded  as  they 
are  in  law  and  in  right,  can  acquiesce  in  the  validity  of  the 
British  practice,  it  lies  with  the  British  government  to 
remove  the  difficulty."/ 

Our  government  having  demanded  of  Great  Britain,  the 
revocation  of  her  blockading  orders  prior  to  the  Berlin 
decree,  and  particularly  that  of  May,  1806,  as  a  condition 
of  renewing  commercial  intercourse  with  that  nation,  but 
without  success  ;  it  became  an  object  with  3Ir.  Madison 
to  adjust,  if  possible,  his  difficulties  with  France.  The 
style  and  temper  in  which  the  correspondence  in  relation 
t^(r^lK*^^  France Awere  essentially  different  from  that  which 
regarded  Great  Britain.  With  the  latter  it  was  peremp- 
tory, and  dogmatical.  With  the  former  it  was  in  the 
language  of  great  moderation,  not  to  say  of  humility  and 
submission.  It  has  been  seen  by  one  of  the  foregoing 
extracts,  that  having  insisted,  in  the  first  place,  upon  the 
revocation  of  the  blockading  order  of  May,  1806,  our 
government  had  advanced  a  step  further,  and  claimed  that 
the  repeal  ought  to  include  the  whole  system  of  paper 
blockades. 

On  the  26th  of  July,  1811,  Mr.  Monroe,  Secretary  of 
State,  addressed  a  letter  to  Joel  Barlow,  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed minister  to  France,  from  which  the  following  ex- 
tracts are  made — After  referring  to  the  events  which  had 
occurred  respecting  the  revocation  of  the  French  decrees, 
and  the  issuing  of  the  President's  proclamation,  suspend- 
ing the  non-intercourse  law  as  it  regarded  France,  it  is 
•aid— 


HAHTFORD    CONVENTION.  127 

"This  declaration  of  the  emperor  of  France  was  con- 
sidered a  sufficient  ground  for  the  President  to  act  on.  It 
was  explicit,  as  to  its  object,  and  equally  so  as  to  its  import. 
The  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  which  had  violated  our 
neutral  rights,  were  said  to  be  repealed,  to  take  effect  at  a 
subsequent  day,  at  no  distant  period,  the  interval  apparently 
intended  to  allow  full  time  for  the  communication  of  the 
measure  to  this  government.  The  declaration  had,  too, 
all  the  formality  which  such  an  act  could  admit  of,  being 
through  the  official  organ  on  both  sides,  from  the  French 
minister  of  foreign  affairs  to  the  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  United  States,  at  Paris. 

"In  consequence  of  this  note  from  the  French  minister 
of  foreign  affairs,  of  the  5th  of  August,  1810,  the  Presi- 
dent proceeded  on  the  2d  of  November  following,  to  issue 
the  proclamation  enjoined  by  the  act  of  May  1,  of  the  same 
year,  to  declare  that  all  the  restrictions  imposed  by  it 
should  cease  and  be  discontinued,  in  relation  to  France  and 
her  dependencies ;  and  in  confirmation  of  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  President,  the  Congress  did,  on  the  2d  of 
March,  1811,  pass  an  act,  whereby  the  non-importation 
system  provided  for  by  the  3d,  &c.  sections  of  the  act  en- 
titled &c.  was  declared  to  be  in  force  against  Great  Bri- 
tain, her  colonies  and  dependencies,  &c."  As  Great  Bri- 
tain did  not  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts,  in  the  manner 
proposed,  the  fifth  provision  had  no  effect. 

"  I  will  now  inquire  whether  France  has  performed  her 
part  of  this  arrangement. 

"It  is  understood  that  the  blockade  of  the  British  isles 
is  revoked.  The  revocation  having  been  officially  declared, 
and  no  vessels  trading  to  them  having  been  condemned  or 
taken  on  the  high  seas,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  the  mea- 
sure is  relinquished.  It  appears  too,  that  no  American 
vessel  has  been  condemned  in  France  for  having  been 
visited  at  sea  by  an  English  ship,  or  for  having  been  search- 
ed or  carried  into  England,  or  subjected  to  impositions 


128  HISTORY    OF   THE 

there.     On  the   sea,  therefore,  France  is  understood  to 
have  changed  her  system. 

"Although  such  is  the  light  in  which  the  conduct  of 
France  is  viewed  in  regard  to  the  neutral  commerce  of 
the  United  States  since  the  1st  of  November  last,  it  will 
nevertheless  be  proper  for  you  to  investigate  fully  the  whole 
subject,  and  see  that  nothing  has  been  or  shall  be  omitted 
on  her  part,  in  future,  which  the  United  States  have  a 
right  to  claim. 

"  Your  early  and  particular  attention  will  be  drawn  to  the 
great  subject  of  the  commercial  relation  which  is  to  subsist 
between  the  United  States,  'i'he  President  expects  that  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States  will  be  placed,  in  the  ports 
of  France,  on  such  a  footing  as  to  afford  to  it  a  fair  market, 
and  to  the  industry  and  enterprise  of  their  people  a  rea- 
sonable encouragement.  An  arrangement  to  this  effect 
was  looked  for  immediately  after  the  revocation  of  the  de- 
crees ;  but  it  appears  from  the  documents  in'  this  depart- 
ment, that  that  was  not  the  case:  on  the  contrary,  that 
our  commerce  has  been  subjected  to  ike  greatest  discourage- 
ment, or  rather  to  the  most  oppressive  restraints;  that  the 
vessels  which  carried  coffee,  sugar,  ifcc.  &c.  though  sailing 
directly  from  the  United  States  to  a  French  port,  were  held 
in  a  state  of  sequestration,  on  the  principle  that  the  trade 
was  prohibited,  and  that  the  importation  of  those  articles 
was  not  only  unlawful,  but  criminal ;  that  even  the  vessels 
which  carried  the  unquestionable  productions  of  the  United 
States  were  exposed  to  great  and  expensive  delays,  to  te- 
dious investigations  in  unusual  forms,  and  to  exorbitant 
duties.  In  short,  that  the  ordinary  usages  of  commerce  be- 
tween friendly  nations  were  abandoned. 

"  When  it  was  announced  that  the  decrees  of  Berlin 
and  Milan  were  revoked,  the  revocation  to  take  effect  on 
the  1st  of  November  last,  it  was  natural  for  our  merchants 
to  rush  into  the  ports  of  France  to  take  advantage  of  a 
market  to  which  they  thought  they  were  invited.     All  these 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  129 

restraints,  therefore,  have  been  unjust  in  regard  to  the 
parties  who  suffered  by  thern  ;  nor  can  they  be  reconciled 
to  the  respect  which  was  dun  to  this  government.  If  France 
had  wished  to  exchide  the  American  commerce  from  her 
ports,  she  ought  to  have  declared  it  to  this  government  in 
explicit  terms,  in  which  case  due  notice  would  have  been 
given  of  it  to  the  American  merchants,  who  would  either 
have  avoided  her  ports,  or  gone  there  at  their  own  hazard. 
But  to  suffer  them  to  enter  her  ports,  under  such  circum- 
stances, and  to  detain  them  there,  under  any  pretext 
whatever,  cannot  be  justified.  It  is  not  known  to  what 
extent  the  injuries  resulting  from  those  delays  have  been 
carried.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  for  every  injury  thus 
sustained,  the  parties  are  entitled  to  reparation, 

**If  the  ports  of  France  and  her  allies  are  not  opened 
to  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  on  a  liberal  scale 
and  on  fair  conditions,  of  what  avail  to  them,  it  may  be 
asked,  will  be  the  revocation  of  the  British  orders  in  coun- 
'cil.^-  In  contending  for  the  revocation  of  those  orders,  so 
far  as  it  was  an  object  of  interest,  the  United  States  had 
in  view  a  trade  with  the  continent.  It  was  a  fair  and  le- 
gitimate object  and  worth  contending  for  while  France  en- 
couraged it ;  but  if  she  shuts  her  ports  on  our  commerce, 
or  burdens  it  with  heavy  duties,  that  motive  is  at  an  end.'* 
I  **  You  will  see  the  injustice,  and  endeavour  to  prevent 
tfte  necessity  of  bringing,  in  return  for  American  cargoes; 
sold  in  France,  an  equal  amount  in  the  produce  or  manu- 
factures of  that  country. .  No  such  obligation  is  imposed 
on  French  merchants  trading  to  the  United  States.  They 
«njoy  the  liberty  of  selling  their  cargoes  for  cash,  and  ta- 
king back  what  they  please  from  this  country  in  return, 
and  the  right  ought  to  be  reciprocal. 

"  It  is  indispensible  that  the  trade  be  free ;  and  that  all 
American  citizens  engaged  in  it  be  placed  on  the  same 
footing ;  and  with  this  view,  that  the  system  of  carrying 
it  on  by  licenses  granted  by  French  agents,  be  immediately 

17 


^;i^ 


130  HISTORY    OF   THE 

annulled.  You  must  make  it  distinctly  understood  by  the 
French  government,  that  the  United  States  cannot  submit 
to  that  system,  as  it  tends  to  sacrifice  one  part  of  the  com- 
munity to  another,  and  to  give  a  corrupt  influence  to  the 
agents  of  a  foreign  power  in  our  towns,  which  is  in  every 
view  incompatible  with  the  principles  of  our  governments 
It  was  presumed  that  this  system  had  been  abandoned 
some  time  since,  as  a  letter  from  the  duke  of  Cadore,  of 
to  Mr  .Russel,  gave  assurance  of  it.  Should  it,  how- 
ever, be  still  maintained,  you  will  not  fail  to  bring  the  sub- 
ject without  delay  before  the  French  government,  and  ta 
urge  its  immediate  abandonment.  The  President  having 
long  since  expressed  his  strong  disapprobation  of  it,  and 
requested  that  the  consuls  would  discontinue  it,  it  is  proba- 
ble, if  they  still  disregard  his  injunction,  that  he  may  find 
it  necessary  to  revoke  their  exequaturs.  I  mention  this 
that  you  may  be  able  to  explain  the  motive  to  such  a  mea- 
sure, should  it  take  place,  which,  without  such  explanation, 
might  probably  be  viewed  in  a  mistaken  light  by  the  French 
government." 

"  You  will  be  able  to  ascei-tain  the  various  other  claims 
which  the  United  States  have  on  France  for  injuries  done 
to  their  citizens,  under  decrees  of  a  subsequent  date  to 
those  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  and  you  will  likewise  use  your 
best  exertions  to  obtain  an  indemnity  for  them.  It  is  pre- 
sumed that  the  French  government  will  be  disposed  to  do 
justice  for  all  these  injuries.  In  looking  to  the  future, 
the  past  ought  to  be  fairly  and  honourably  adjusted.  If 
that  is  not  done,  much  dissatisfaction  will  remain  here^ 
which  cannot  fail  to  produce  a  very  unfavourable  efli'ect  on 
the  relations  which  are  to  subsist  in  future  between  the 
two  countries. 

'*  The  first  of  these  latter  decrees  bears  date  at  Ba- 
yonne,  on  the  17th  of  March,  1808,  by  which  many  Ame- 
rican vessels  and  their  cargoes  were  seized  and  carried 
into  France,  and  others  which  had  entered  her  ports  in 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  131 

the  fair  course  of  trade,  were  seized  and  sequestered,  or 
confiscated  by  her  government.  It  was  pretended  in  vin- 
dication of  this  measure,  that  as,  under  our  embargo  law, 
no  American  vessel  could  navigate  the  ocean,  all  those 
who  were  found  on  it  were  trading  on  British  account,  and 

lawful  prize.     The  fact,  however,  was  otherwise." 

"  The  Rarabouillet  decree  was  a  still  more  unjustifiable 
aggression  on  the  rights  of  the  United  States,  and  invasion 
of  the  property  of  their  citizens.  It  bears  date  on  the 
23d  of  March,  1810,  and  made  a  sweep  of  all  American 
property  within  the  reach  of  the  French  power.  It  was 
also  retrospective,  extending  back  to  the  20th  of  May, 
1809.  By  this  decree  every  American  vessel  and  cargo, 
even  those  which  had  been  delivered  up  to  the  owners  by 
compromise  with  the  captors,  was  seized  and  sold.  The 
law  of  March  1st,  1809,  commonly  called  the  non-inter- 
course law,  was  the  pretext  for  this  measure,  which  was 
intended  as  an  act  of  reprisal.  It  requires  no  reasoning  to 
show  the  injustice  of  this  pretension.  Our  law  regulated  the 
trade  of  the  United  States  with  other  powers,  particularly 
with  France  and  Great  Britain,  and  was  sucli  a  law  as 
every  nation  had  a  right  to  adopt.  It  was  duly  promulgated 
and  reasonable  notice  given  of  it  to  other  powers.  It  was 
also  impartial  as  it  related  to  the  belligerents.  The  con- 
demnation of  such  vessels  of  France  or  England  as  came 
into  the  ports  of  the  United  States  in  breach  of  this  law, 
was  strictly  proper,  and  could  afford  no  cause  of  complaint 
to  either  power.  The  seizure  of  so  vast  a  property  as  was 
laid  hold  of  under  that  pretext  by  the  French  government, 
places  the  transaction  in  a  very  clear  light.  If  an  indem- 
nity had  been  sought  for  an  imputed  injury,  the  measure 
of  the  injury  should  have  been  ascertained,  and  the  indem- 
nity proportioned  to  it.  But  in  this  case  no  injury  had 
been  sustained  on  principle.  A  trifling  loss  only  had  been 
incurred,  and  for  that  loss  all  the  American  property  which 
could  be  found  was  seized,  involving  in  indiscriminate  ruin 
innocent  merchants  who  had  entered  the  ports  of  France 


132  HISTORY    OF   THE 

in  a  fair  course  of  trade.  It  is  proper  tliat  you  should  make 
it  distinctly  known  to  the  French  government  that  the  claim 
to  a  just  reparation  for  these  spoliations  cannot  be  relin- 
quished, and  that  a  delay  in  making  it  will  produce  very 
high  dissatisfaction  with  this  government,  and  people  of 
these  states. 

"  It  has  been  intimated  that  the  French  government 
would  be  willing  to  make  this  reparation,  provided  the 
United  States  would  make  one  in  return  for  the  vessels 
and  property  condemned  under  and  in  breach  of  our  non- 
intercourse  law.  Although  the  proposition  was  objection- 
able in  many  views,  yet  this  government  consented  to  it,  to 
save  so  great  a  mass  of  the  property  of  our  citizens.  An 
instruction  for  this  purpose  was  given  to  your  predecessor, 
which  you  are  authorized  to  carry  into  effect. 

"  The  influence  of  France  has  been  exerted  to  the  in- 
jury of  the  United  States  in  all  the  countries  to  which  her 
power  has  extended.  In  Spain,  Holland,  and  Naples,  it 
has  been  most  sensibly  felt.  In  each  of  those  countries 
the  vessels  and  cargoes  of  American  merchants  were 
seized  and  confiscated  under  various  decrees  founded  in 
different  pretexts,  none  of  which  had  even  the  semblance 
of  right  to  support  them.  As  the  United  States  never  in- 
jured France,  that  plea  must  fail ;  and  that  they  had  in- 
jureil  either  of  those  powers  was  never  pretended.  You 
will  be  furnished  with  the  documents  which  relate  to  these 
aggressions,  and  you  will  claim  of  the  French  government 
an  indemnity  for  them. 

"  The  United  States  have  also  just  cause  of  complaint 
against  France  for  many  injuries  that  were  committed  by 
persons  acting  under  her  authority.  Of  these  the  most 
distinguished,  and  least  justifiable,  are  the  examples  which 
occurred  of  burning  the  vessels  of  our  citizens  at  sea. 
Their  atrocity  forbids  the  imputation  of  them  to  the  go- 
vernment. To  it,  however,  the  United  States  must  look 
for  reparation,  which  you  will  accordingly  claim." 

The  letter  from  which  these  passages  are  taken,  was 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  133 

written  in  July,  1811 — about  nine  months  after  the  pre-  ^<«^ 
tended  revocation  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees./. It 
contains  a  black  catalogue  of  charges  against  the  French 
government,  the  most  outrageous  of  which,  both  as  it  re- 
gards the  principle  on  which  it  was  founded,  and  the 
amount  of  property  piratically  seized  and  confiscated,  wa3 
that  of  the  proceedings  under  the  Rambouillet  decree. 
That  decree  had  been  issued,  and  those  confiscations  had 
been  adjudged  more  than  seven  months  prior  to  the  pre- 
tended revocation  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  ;  no  re- 
muneration had  been  made,  or  even  promised,  before  that 
revocation,  and  yet  President  Madison,  upon  receiving  in- 
formation that  his  majesty  the  emperor  of  France  had 
issued  his  decree  respecting  the  revocation  of  the  Berlin 
and  Milan  decrees,  immediately  suspended  the  non-inter- 
course law  with  regard  to  France,  and  thus  opened  the  way, 
by  encouraging  the  renewal  of  the  trade  with  that  country, 
for  further  depredations,  and  a  renewed  series  of  piracies 
upon  our  commerce.  But  because  Bonaparte  demanded 
the  repeal  of  the  British  blockading  order  of  May,  1806, 
as  the  only  condition  on  which  he  would  consent  to  revoke 
those  decrees,  our  government  condescended  to  demand 
that  measure  of  the  British,  as  the  only  terms  on  which 
the  trade  with  that  country  could  bo  renewed.  And  it  was 
by  insisting  on  this  prc-requisite,  that  the  war  of  1812  was 
eventually  produced. 

In  addition  to  the  passages  quoted  from  the  foregoing 
letter,  the  following  is  a  letter  addressed  by  the  Secretary 
of  State  to  Mr.  Barlow,  then  minister  at  Paris,  dated 
Jidj  14,  1812— 
I  "The  President  has  seen  with  great  surprise  and  con- 
cern that  the  government  of  France  had  made  no  accom- 
modation to  the  United  States  on  any  of  the  important 
and  just  grounds  of  complaint  to  which  you  had  called  its 
attention,  according  to  your  instructions,  given  at  the  time 
of  your  departure,  and  repeated  in  several  communica- 
tions since.  It  appears  that  the  same  oppressive  restraints 


134  HISTORY    OF    THE 

on  our  commerce  were  still  in  force ;  that  the  system  of 
license  was  persevered  in  ;  that  indemnity  had  not  been 
made  for  spoliations,  nor  any  pledge  given  to  inspire  con- 
fidence that  any  would  be  made.  More  recent  wrongs, 
on  the  contrary,  and  of  a  very  outrageous  character,  have 
been  added  to  those  with  which  you  were  acquainted  when 
you  left  the  United  States.  By  documents  forwarded  to 
you  in  my  letter  of  the  21st  of  March,  you  were  informed 
of  the  waste  of  our  commerce,  made  by  a  squadron  from 
Nantz,  in  January  last,  which  burnt  many  of  our  vessels 
trading  to  the  Peninsula.  For  these  you  were  also  in- 
structed to  demand  redress.  ' 

*'  It  is  hoped  that  the  government  of  France,  regarding 
with  a  prudent  foresight  the  probable  course  of  events, 
will  have  some  sensibility  to  its  interest,  if  it  has  none  to 
the  claims  of  justice,  on  the  part  of  this  country." 

The  task  of  reconciling  the  expressions  in  this  letter, 
with  the  declarations  so  often  made  and  repeated  by  our 
government  to  that  of  Great  Britain,  when  calling  upon 
the  latter  to  revoke  their  orders  of  council,  on  the  grounds 
of  an  engagement  to  proceed  pari  passu  with  France  in 
repealing  her  decrees  which  violated  our  neutral  rights, 
must  be  left  to  those  who  are  not  easily  staggered  with 
inconsistencies,  or  disturbed  with  contradictions.  It  is  a 
task  which  any  man  not  immediately  interested  in  the 
result,  and  who  wishes  to  preserve  a  reputation  for  vera- 
city, will  not  undertake,  or  covet. 

On  the  27th  of  July,  1811,  Mr.  Monroe  communicated 
in  a  letter  to  Jonathan  Russell,  his  appointment  as  charge 
d'affaires  of  the  United  States  at  London-  Mr.  Russell 
reached  London  in  November  of  that  year.  On  the  14th 
of  February,  1812,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Monroe,  that  at  tbat 
time  there  had  been  exhibited  no  evidence  of  a  disposition 
on  the  part  of  the  British  government  to  repeal  the  orders 
in  council.  On  the  9th  of  the  same  month,  he  also  wrote 
as  follows — "  I  have  the  honour  to  transmit  to  you  enclosed, 
a  copy  of  a  letter,  dated  29th  ult.  from  Mr.  Barlow,  and  %. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  135 

copy  of  the  note  in  which  I  yesterday  communicated  that 
letter  to  the  Marquis  Wellesley. 

"Although  the  proof  of  the  revocation  of  the  French  de- 
crees,  contained  in  the  letter  of  Mr,  Barlow,  is,  when  taken 
by  itself  of  no  very  conclusive  character,  yet  it  ought,  when 
connected  with  that  previously  exhibited  to  this  govern- 
ment, to  be  admitted  as  satisfactorily  establishing  that 
revocation;  and  in  this  vie,w  I  have  thought  it  to  be  my 
duty  to  present  it  here." 

On  the  4th  of  March,  1812,  Mr.  Russell  wrote  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Monroe,  from  which  the  following  is  copied — 

''Since  my  letters  of  the  19th  and  22d  ultimo,  which  I 
trust  will  have  extinguished  all  expectation  of  any  change 
here,  the  motion  of  Lord  Landsdown  on  the  28th  of  Fe- 
bruary, and  that  of  Mr.  Brougham  yesterday,  have  been 
severally  debated  in  the  respective  houses  of  parliament. 
I  attended  the  discussions  on  both,  and  if  any  thing  was 
wanting  to  prove  the  inflexible  determination  of  the  pre- 
sent ministry  to  persevere  in  the  orders  in  council  without 
modification  or  relaxation,  the  declarations  of  the  leading 
members  of  administration  on  these  occasions  must  place 
it  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt.  In  both  houses  these 
leaders  expressed  a  disposition  to  forbear  to  canvass,  in  the 
present  state  of  our  relations,  the  conduct  of  the  United 
States  towards  England,  as  it  could  not  be  done  without 
reproaching  her  in  a  manner  to  increase  the  actual  irrita- 
tion, and  to  do  away  what  Lord  Bathurst  stated  to  be  the 
feeble  hopes  of  preventing  war. 

*'  In  the  house  of  commons,  Mr.  Rose  virtually  confessed 
that  the  orders  in  council  were  maintained  to  promote  the 
trade  of  England  at  the  expense  of  neutrals,  and  as  a  mea- 
sure of  commercial  rivalry  with  the  United  States.  When 
Mr.  Canning  inveighed  against  this  new  (he  must  have 
meant  newly  acknowledged)  ground  of  defending  these 
orders,  and  contended  that  they  could  be  justified  only  on 
the  principle  of  retaliation,  on  which  they  were  avowedly 


136  HISTORY   OF   THE 

instituted,  and  that  they  were  intended  to  produce  the 
effects  of  an  actual  blockade,  and  liable  to  all  the  inci- 
dents  of  such   blockade — that  is,  that  they  were  meant 
only  to  distress  the  enemy — and  that  Great  Britain  had 
no  right  to  defeat  this  operation  by  an  intercourse  with 
that  enemy  which  she  denied  to  neutrals ;  Mr.  Percival 
replied,   '*  that  the   orders  were    still    supported    on    the 
principle  of  retaliation,  but  that  this  very  principle  involved 
the  license  trade  ;  for  as  France  by  her  decrees  had  said 
that  no  nation  should  trade  with  her  which  traded  with 
England,  England  retorted,  that  no  country  should  trade 
with    France    but   through    England.     He  asserted  that 
neither  the  partial  nor  even  the  total  repeal  of  the  Berlin 
and  Milan  decrees,  as  they  related  to  America,  or  to  any 
other  nation,  or  all  other  nations,  would  form  any  claim 
on  the  British  government,  while  the  continental  system^  so 
called,  continued  in  operation.  He  denied  that  this  system 
or  any  part  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  were  merely 
municipal.     They  had  not  been  adopted  in  time  of  peace 
with  a  view  to  internal  regulation,  but  in  a  time  of  war, 
with  a  hostile  purpose  towards  England.     Every  clause 
and  particle  of  them  were  to  be  considered  of  a  nature 
entirely  belligerent,  and  as  such,  requiring  resistance  and 
authorising  retaliation  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.     It 
•was  idle  and  absurd  to  suppose  that  Great  Britain  was 
bound,  in  acting  on  the  principle  of  retaliation  in  these 
times,  to  return  exactly  and  in  form  like  for  like,  and  to 
choose  the  object  and  fashion  the  mode  of  executing  it  pre- 
cisely by  the  measures  of  the  enemy.  In  adopting  these  mea- 
sures, France  had  broken  through  all  the  restraints  imposed 
by  the  laws  of  nations,  and  trodden  under  foot  the  great 
conventional  code  received  by  the  civilized  world  as  pre- 
scribing rules  for  its  conduct  in  war  as  well  as  in  peace. 
In  this  state  of  things  England  was  not  bound  any  longer 
to  shackle  herself  with  this  code,  and  by  so  doing  become 
the  unresisting  victim  of  the  violence  of  her  enemy,  but  she 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  137 

was  herself  released  from  the  laws  of  nations,  and  left  at 
liberty  to  resort  to  any  means  within  her  power  to  injure 
and  distress  that  enemy,  and  to  bring  it  back  to  an  observ- 
ance of  the  jus  gentium  which  it  had  so  egregiously  and 
wantonly  violated.  Nor  was  England  to  be  restricted  any  - 
more  in  the  extent  than  in  the  form  of  retaliation ;  but  she 
had  a  right,  both  as  to  the  quantity  and  manner,  to  inflict 
upon  the  enemy  all  the  evil  in  her  power,  until  this  enemy 
should  retrace  its  steps,  and  renounce,  not  only  verbally 
but  practically,  its  decrees,  its  continental  system,  and 
every  other  of  its  belligerent  measures  incompatible  with 
the  old  acknowledged  laws  of  nations.  Whatever  neutrals 
might  suffer  from  the  retaliatory  measures  of  England,  was 
purely  incidental,  and  as  no  injustice  was  intended  to  them, 
they  had  a  right  to  complain  of  none  ;  and  he  rejoiced  to 
observe  that  no  charge  of  such  injustice  had  that  night 
been  brought  forward  in  the  house.  As  England  was 
contending  for  the  defence  of  her  maritime  rights,  and  for 
the  preservation  of  her  national  existence,  which  essen- 
tially depended  on  the  maintenance  of  those  rights,  she 
could  not  be  expected,  in  the  prosecution  of  this  great  and 
primary  interest,  to  arrest  or  vary  her  course,  to  listen  to 
the  pretensions  of  neutral  nations,  or  to  remove  the  evils, 
however  they  might  be  regretted,  which  the  imperious 
policy  of  the  times  indirectly  and  unintentionally  extended 
to  them. 

"  As  the  newspapers  of  this  morning  give  but  a  very 
imperfect  report  of  this  speech  of  Mr..  Percival,  I  have 
thought  it  to  be  my  duty  to  present  you  with  a  more  par- 
ticular account  of  the  doctrines  which  were  maintained  in 
it,  and  which  so  vitally  affect  the  rights  and  interests  of 
the  United  States. 

"I  no  longer  entertain  a  hope  that  we  can  honourably 
avoid  war.'^ 

On  the  30th  of  May,  1812,  Mr.  Foster  addressed  a  long 
letter  to  Mr.   Monroe,  in  which  he  reviewed  the  whole 

18 


V^S  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ground  of  controversy  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain.  This  document  is  too  long  to  be  copied  in 
full.     It  commences  in  the.  following  manner — 

*'  Notwithstanding  the  discouraging  nature  of  the  con- 
versation which  I  had  the  honour  to  have  with  you  a  few 
days  since  at  your  office,  and  the  circumstance  of  your 
continued  silence  in  regard  to  two  letters  from  me,  furnish- 
ing additional  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  French  decrees, 
nevertheless  there  does  now  appear  such  clear  and  con- 
vincing evidence  in  the  report  of  the  duke  of  Bassano, 
dated  the  10th  of  March,  of  the  present  year,  of  those 
decrees  having  not  only  never  been  rescinded,  but  of  their 
being  recently  extended  and  aggravated  in  the  republica- 
tion of  them  contained  in  that  instrument,  that  I  cannot 
but  imagine  it  will  seem  most  important  to  the  President 
that  it  should  be  communicated  to  Congress,  without 
delay,  in  the  present  interesting  crisis  of  their  delibera- 
tions ;  and  therefore  hasten  to  fulfil  the  instructions  of  my 
government,  in  laying  before  the  government  of  the  United 
States  the  enclosed  Moniteur  of  the  16th  of  last  March,  in 
which  is  contained  that  report,  as  it  was  made  to  the  ruler 
of  France,  and  communicated  to  the  conservative  senate. 

**  This  report  confirms,  if  any  thing  were  wanting  to 
confirm,  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  the  repeated  as- 
sertions of  Great  Britain,  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  de- 
crees have  never  been  revoked,  however  some  partial  and 
insidious  relaxations  of  them  may  have  been  made  in  a 
few  instances,  as  an  encouragement  to  America  to  adopt 
a  system  beneficial  to  France,  and  injurious  to  Great  Bri- 
tain, while  the  conditions  on  which  alone  it  has  been  de- 
clared that  those  decrees  will  ever  be  revoked,  are  hei»e 
explained  and  amplified  in  a  manner  to  leave  us  no  hope 
of  Bonaparte  having  any  disposition  to  renounce  the  sys- 
tem of  injustice  which  he  has  pursued,  so  as  to  make  it 
possible  for  Great  Britain  to  give  up  the  defensive  mea-^ 
sures  she  has  been  obliged  to  resort  to. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  139 

**  I  need  not  remind  you,  sir,  how  often  it  has  in  vain 
been  urged  by  Great  Britain,  that  a  copy  of  the  instru- 
ment should  be  produced,  by  which  the  decrees  of  Bona- 
parte were  said  to  be  repealed,  and  how  much  it  has  been 
desired  that  America  should  explicitly  state  that  she  did 
not  adopt  the  conditions  on  which  the  repeal  was  offered. 

"It  is  now  manifest  that  there  was  never  more  than  a 
conditional  offer  of  repeal  made  by  France,  which  we  had 
a  right  to  complain  that  America  should  have  asked  us 
to  recognise  as  absolute,  and  which,  if  accepted  in  its  ex- 
tent by  America,  would  only  have  formed  fresh  matter  of 
complaint,  and  a  new  ground  for  declining  her  demands." 

Mr.  Foster  then  attempts  to  show,  by  a  series  of  argu- 
mentation, that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  not  in 
fact  been  revoked  ;  and  he  then  proceeds  as  follows : — 

"  I  will  not  now  trouble  you,  sir,  with  many  observations 
relative  to  the  blockade  of  May,  1806,  as  the  legality  of  that 
blockade,  assuming  the  blockading  force  to  have  been  suf- 
ficient to  enforce  it,  has  latterly  not  been  questioned  by  you. 

"  I  will  merely  remark  that  it  was  impossible  Great  Bri- 
tain should  receive,  otherwise  than  with  the  utmost  jea- 
lousy, the  unexpected  demand  made  by  America  for  th« 
repeal  of  the  blockade  as  well  as  of  the  orders  in  council, 
when  it  appeared  to  be  made  subsequent  to,  if  not  in  con- 
sequence of,  one  of  the  conditions  in  Bonaparte's  pretend- 
ed repeal  of  his  decrees,  which  condition  was  our  renoun- 
cing what  he  calls  '  our  new  principles  of  blockade  ;'  that 
the  demand  on  the  part  of  America  was  additional  and 
new,  is  sufficiently  proved  by  a  reference  to  the  overture 
of  Mr.  Pinkney,  as  well  as  from  the  terms  on  which  Mr. 
Erskine  had  arranged  the  dispute  with  America  relative  to 
the  orders  in  council.  In  that  arrangement  liothing-^as 
brought  forward  with  regard  to  this  blockade.  Am^}<^^'^ 
would  have  been  contented  at  that  time  without  any  refe- 
rence to  it.  It  certainly  is  not  more  a  grievance,  or  an 
injustice,  now,  than  it  was  then.     Why  then  is  the  renun- 


140  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ciation  of  that  blockade  insisted  upon  now,  if  it  was  not 
necessary  to  insist  upon  it  then  ?  It  is  difficult  to  find  any 
answer  but  by  reference  to  subsequent  communications 
between  France  and  America,  and  a  disposition  in  America 
to  countenance  France  in  requiring  the  disavowal  of  this 
blockade,  and  the  principles  upon  which  it  rested,  as  the 
condition  sine  qua  non  of  the  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees.  It  seems  to  have  become  an  object  with  Ame- 
rica, only  because  it  was  prescribed  as  a  condition  by 
France. 

"  On  this  blockade,  and  the  principles  and  rights  upon 
which  it  was  founded,  Bonaparte  appears  to  rest  the  justi- 
fication of  all  his  measures  for  abolishing  neutrality,  and 
for  the  invasion  of  every  state  which  is  not  ready,  with 
him,  to  wage  a  war  of  extermination  against  the  com- 
merce of  Great  Britain. 

"  America,  therefore,  no  doubt  saw  the  necessity  of  de- 
manding its  renunciation,  but  she  will  now  ^e  that  it  is  in 
reality  vain  either  for  America  or  Great  Britain  to  expect 
an  actual  repeal  of  the  French  decrees,  until  Great  Bri- 
tain renounces,  first,  the  basis,  viz.  the  blockade  of  1806, 
on  which  Bonaparte  has  been  pleased  to  found  them  ; 
next,  the  right  of  retaliation  as  subsequently  acted  upon 
in  the  orders  in  council ;  further,  until  she  is  ready  to  re- 
ceive the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  interpreted  and  applied  by  the 
duke  of  Bassano's  report  as  the  universal  law  of  nations  ; 
and  finally,  till  she  abjures  all  the  principles  of  maritime 
law  which  support  her  established  rights,  now  more  than 
ever  essential  to  her  existence  as  a  nation." 

"I  am  commanded,  sir,  to  express  on  the  part  of  his 
ro^^l  highness  the  prince  regent,  that  while  his  royal  high- 
ness entertains  the  most  sincere  desire  to  conciliate  Ame- 
rica, he  yet  can  never  concede  that  the  blockade  of  May, 
1806,  could  justly  be  made  the  foundation,  as  it  avowedly 
has  been,  for  the  decrees  of  Bonaparte  ;  and  further,  that 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  141 

the  British  government  must  ever  consider  the  principles  on 
which  that  blockade  rested,  (accompanied  as  it  was  by 
an  adequate  blockading  force,)  to  have  been  strictly  con- 
sonant to  the  established  law  of  nations,  and  a  legitimate 
instance  of  the  practice  which  it  recognises. 

"Secondly,  that  Great  Britain  must  continue  to  reject 
the  other  spurious  doctrines  promulgated  by  France  in  the 
duke  of  Bassano's  report,  as  binding  upon  all  nations.  She 
cannot  admit,  as  a  true  declaration  of  public  law,  that  free 
ships  make  free  goods,  nor  the  converse  of  that  proposi- 
tion, that  enemy's  ships  destroy  the  character  of  neutral 
property  in  the  cargo  :  she  cannot  consent,  by  the  adoption 
of  such  a  principle,  to  deliver  absolutely  the  commerce  of 
France  from  the  pressure  of  the  naval  power  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, and  by  the  abuse  of  the  neutral  flag,  to  allow  her 
enemy  to  obtain,  without  the  expense  of  sustaining  a  navy 
for  the  trade  and  property  of  French  subjects,  a  degree  of 
freedom  and  security,  which  even  the  commerce  of  her 
own  subjects  cannot  find  under  the  protection  of  the  Bri- 
tish navy. 

"  She  cannot  admit,  as  a  principle  of  public  law,  that 
arms  and  military  stores  are  alone  contraband  of  war,  and 
that  ship  timber  and  naval  stores  are  excluded  from  that 
description.  Neither  can  she  admit  w^ithout  retaliation, 
that  the  mere  fact  of  commercial  intercourse  with  British 
ports  and  subjects  should  be  made  a  crime  in  all  nations, 
and  that  the  armies  and  decrees  of  France  should  be 
directed  to  enforce  a  principle  so  new  and  unheard  of 
in  war. 

'*  Great  Britain  feels,  that  to  relinquish  her  just  mea- 
sures of  self-defence  and  retaliation,  would  be  to  surrender 
the  best  means  of  her  own  preservation  and  rights,  and 
with  them  the  rights  of  other  nations,  so  long  as  France 
maintains  and  acts  upon  such  principles." 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  at  the  beginning  of  June,  1812,  that  it 


142  HISTORY    OF   THE 

was  apparent  the  former  were  resolved  on  a  war  with  the 
latter.  On  the  1st  of  June,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  transmitted  a  message  to  Congress,  in  which  he  re- 
viewed the  difficulties  which  had  occurred,  and  those  which 
then  existed,  and  described  in  strong  language  the  aggres- 
sions with  which  we  had  been  visited  by  that  nation.  To- 
wards the  conclusion  he  makes  the  following  remarks — 

**  Such  is  the  spectacle  of  injuries  and  indignities  which 
have  been  heaped  on  our  country;  and  such  the  crisis 
which  its  unexampled  forbearance  and  conciliatory  efforts 
have  not  been  able  to  avert.  It  might,  at  least,  have  been 
expected,  that  an  enlightened  nation,  if  less  urged  by  mo- 
ral obligations,  or  invited  by  friendly  dispositions  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  would  have  found,  in  its  true 
interest  alone,  a  sufficient  motive  to  respect  their  rights 
and  their  tranquility  on  the  high  seas ;  that  an  enlarged 
policy  could  have  favoured  that  free  and  general  circula- 
tion of  commerce,  in  which  the  British  nation  is  at  all  times 
interested,  and  which,  in  times  of  war,  is  the  best  allevia- 
tion of  its  calamities  to  herself,  as  well  as  to  other  bellige- 
rents ;  and  more  especially  that  the  British  cabinet  would 
not,  for  the  sake  of  a  precarious  and  surreptitious  inter- 
course with  hostile  markets,  have  persevered  in  a  course 
of  measures  which  necessarily  put  at  hazard  the  invalu- 
able market  of  a  great  and  growing  country,  disposed  to 
cultivate  the  mutual  advantages  of  an  active  commerce. 

*' Other  councils  have  prevailed.  Our  moderation  and 
conciliation  have  had  no  other  effect  than  to  encourage  per- 
severance, and  to  enlarge  pretensions.  We  behold  our 
seafaring  citizens  still  the  daily  victims  of  lawless  violence 
committed  on  the  great  common  highway  of  nations,  even 
within  sight  of  the  country  which  owes  them  protection. 
We  behold  our  vessels,  freighted  with  the  products  of  our 
soil  and  industry,  or  returning  with  the  honest  proceeds  of 
them,  wrested  from  their  lawful  destinations,  confiscated 
by  prize  courts,  no  longer  the  organs  of  public  law,  but 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  143 

the  instruments  of  arbitrary  edicts ;  and  their  unfortunate 
crews  dispersed  and  lost,  or  forced  or  inveigled,  in  British 
ports,  into  British  fleets  ;  whilst  arguments  are  employed, 
in  support  of  these  aggressions,  which  have  no  foundation 
hut  in  a  principle  equally  supporting  a  claim  to  regulate 
our  external  commerce  in  all  cases  whatsoever. 

"We  behold,  in  fine,  on  the  side  of  Great  Britain,  a 
state  of  war  against  the  United  States;  and  on  the  side  of 
the  United  States,  a  state  of  peace  towards  Great  Britain. 

*'  Whether  the  United  States  shall  continue  passive  un- 
der these  progressive  usurpations,  and  these  accumulating 
wrongs ;  or,  opposing  force  to  force  in  defence  of  their 
national  rights,  shall  commit  a  just  cause  into  the  hands  of 
the  Almighty  Disposer  of  events;  avoiding  all  connections 
which  might  entangle  it  in  the  contests  or  views  of  other 
powers,  and  preserving  a  constant  readiness  to  concur  in 
an  honourable  re-establishment  of  peace  and  friendship, 
is  a  solemn  question,  which  the  constitution  wisely  confides 
to  the  legislative  department  of  the  government.  In  re- 
commending it  to  their  early  deliberations,  I  am  happy  in 
the  assurance,  that  the  decision  will  be  worthy  the  enlight- 
ened and  patriotic  councils  of  a  virtuous,  a  free,  and  a 
powerful  nation." 

On  the  3d  of  June,  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  made  a  long  report  on 
the  foregoing  message.  After  recapitulating  various  char- 
ges of  aggression  upon  our  neutral  rights  by  the  British 
nation,  the  committee  in  their  manifesto  say — 

"  In  May,  1806,  the  whole  coast  of  the  continent,  from 
the  Elbe  to  Brest,  inclusive,  was  declared  to  be  in  a  state 
of  blockade.  By  this  act,  the  well  established  principles 
of  the  law  of  nations,  principles  which  have  served  for 
ages  as  guides,  and  fixed  the  boundary  between  the  rights 
of  belligerents  and  neutrals,  were  violated.  By  the  law  of 
nations,  as  recognised  by  Great  Britain  herself,  no  block- 
ade is  lawful  unless  it  be  sustained  by  the  application  of 


144  HISTORY    OF    THE 

an  adequate  force  ;  and  that  an  adequate  force  was  applied 
to  this  blockade,  in  its  full  extent,  ought  not  to  be  pretend- 
ed. Whether  Great  Britain  was  able  to  maintain  legally, 
so  extensive  a  blockade,  considering  the  war  in  which  she 
is  engaged,  requiring  such  extensive  naval  operations,  is 
a  question  which  it  is  not  necessary  at  this  time  to  exa- 
mine. It  is  sufficient  to  be  known  that  such  force  w^as  not 
applied,  and  this  is  evident  from  the  terms  of  the  blockade 
itself,  by  w^hich,  comparatively,  an  inconsiderable  portion 
of  the  coast  only  was  declared  tct  he  in  a  state  of  strict 
and  rigorous  blockade.  The  objection  to  the  measure  is 
not  diminished  by  that  circumstance.  If  the  force  was  not 
applied,  the  blockade  was  unlawful,  from  w4iatever  cause 
the  failure  might  proceed.  The  belligerent  who  institutes 
the  blockade  cannot  absolve  itself  from  the  obligation  to 
apply  the  force,  under  any  pretext  whatever.  For  a  bel- 
liojerent  to  relax  a  blockade  which  it  could  not  maintain, 
with  a  view  to  absolve  itself  from  the  obligation  to  main- 
tain it,  would  be  a  refinement  in  injustice,  not  less  insult- 
ing to  the  understanding  than  repugnant  to  the  law  of  na- 
tions. To  claim  merit  for  the  mitigation  of  an  evil  which 
the  party  either  had  not  the  power,  or  found  it  inconve- 
nient to  inflict,  would  be  a  new  mode  of  encroaching  on 
neutral  rights.  Your  committee  think  it  just  to  remark, 
that  tJiis  act  of  the  British  government  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  adopted  in  the  sense  in  which  it  has  been  since  con- 
strued. On  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  attend- 
ing the  measure,  and  particularly  the  character  of  the  dis- 
tinguished statesman  who  announced  it,  ice  are  persuaded 
that  it  was  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation,  and  intended 
to  lead  to  an  accommodation  of  all  differences  betiveen  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain.  His  death  disappointed 
that  hope,  and  the  act  has  since  become  subservient  to 
other  purposes.  It  has  been  made  by  his  successors  a  pre- 
text for  that  vast  system  of  usurpation  which  has  so  long 
oppressed  and  harassed  our  commerce. 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  145 

"  The  next  act  of  the  British  government  which  claims 
our  attention,  is  the  order  of  council  of  January  7, 1807,  by 
which  neutral  powers  are  prohibited  trading  from  one  port 
to  another  of  France,  or  her  allies,  or  any  other  country 
with  which  Great  Britain  might  not  freely  trade.  By  this 
order,  the  pretension  of  England,  heretofore  disclaimed 
by  every  other  power,  to  prohibit  neutrals  disposing  of 
parts  of  their  cargoes  at  different  ports  of  the  same  enemy, 
is  revived,  and  with  vast  accumulation  of  injury.  Every 
enemy,  however  great  the  number,  or  distant  from  each 
other,  is  considered  one,  and  the  like  trade  even  with 
powers  at  peace  with  England,  who,  from  motives  of 
policy,  had  excluded  or  restrained  her  commerce,  was  also 
prohibited.  In  this  act,  the  British  government  evidently 
disclaimed  all  regard  for  neutral  rights.  Aware  that  the 
measures  authorized  by  it  could  find  no  pretext  in  any 
belligerent  right,  none  was  urged.  To  prohibit  the  sale 
of  our  produce,  consisting  of  innocent  articles,  at  any  port 
of  a  belligerent,  not  blockaded  ;  to  consider  every  bellige- 
rent as  one,  and  subject  neutrals  to  the  same  restraints 
with  all,  as  if  there  was  but  one,  were  bold  encroachments. 
But  to  restrain,  or  in  any  manner  interfere  with  our  com- 
merce with  neutral  nations,  with  whom  Great  Britain  was 
at  peace,  and  against  whom  she  had  no  justifiable  cause  of 
war,  for  the  sole  reason  that  they  restrained  or  excluded 
from  their  ports  her  commerce,  was  utterly  incompatible 
with  the  pacific  relations  subsisting  between  the  two 
countries. 

*'  We  proceed  to  bring  into  view  the  British  order  in 
council  of  November  11,  1807,  which  superseded  every 
other  order,  and  consummated  that  system  of  hostility  on 
the  commerce  of  the  United  States  which  has  been  since 
so  steadily  pursued.  By  this  order,  all  France,  and  her 
allies,  and  every  other  country  at  war  with  Great  Britain, 
or  with  which  she  was  not  at  war,  from  which  the  British 
flag  was  excluded,  and  all  the  colonies  of  her  enemies,  were 

19 


146  HISTORY    OF    THE 

subjected  to  the  same  restrictions  as  if  they  were  actually 
blockaded  in  the  most  strict  and  rigorous  manner  ;  and  all 
trade  in  articles,  the  produce  and  manufacture  of  the  said 
countries  and  colonies,  and  the  vessels  engaged  in  it,  were 
subjected  to  capture  and  condemnation  as  lawful  prize. 
To  this  order  certain  exceptions  were  made,  which  we 
forbear  to  notice,  because  they  were  not  adopted  from  a 
regard  to  neutral  rights,  but  were  dictated  by  policy  to 
promote  the  commerce  of  England,  and  so  far  as  they  re- 
lated to  neutral  powers,  were  said  to  emanate  from  the 
clemency  of  the  British  government. 

*'  It  would  be  superfluous  in  your  committee  to  state,  that 
by  this  order  the  British  government  declared  direct  and 
positive  war  against  the  United  States.  The  dominion  of 
the  ocean  was  completely  usurped  by  it,  all  commerce  for- 
bidden, and  every  flag  driven  from  it,  or  subjected  to  cap- 
ture and  condemnation,  which  did  not  subserve  the  policy 
of  the  British  government  by  paying  it  a  tribute,  and  sail- 
ing under  its  sanction.  From  this  period  the  United 
States  have  incurred  the  heaviest  losses,  and  most  mortify- 
ing humiliations.  They  have  borne  the  calamities  of  war, 
without  retorting  them  on  its  authors. 

**  So  far  your  committee  has  presented  to  the  view  of 
the  house,  the  aggressions  which  have  been*  committed  un- 
der the  authority  of  the  British  government  on  the  com- 
merce of  the  United  States.  We  will  now  proceed  to  other 
wrongs  which  have  been  still  more  severely  felt.  Among 
these  is  the  impressment  of  our  seamen,  a  practice  which 
has  been  unceasingly  maintained  by  Great  Britain  in  the 
wars  to  which  she  has  been  a  party  since  our  revolution. 
Your  committee  cannot  convey  in  adequate  terms  the 
deep  sense  which  they  entertain  of  the  injustice  and  oppres- 
sion of  this  proceeding.  Under  the  pretext  of  impressing 
British  seamen,  our  fellow  citizens  are  seized  in  British 
ports,  on  the  high  seas,  and  in  every  other  quarter  to  which 
the  British  power  extends;  are  taken  on  board  British 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  147 

men  of  war,  and  compelled  to  serve  there  as  British  sub- 
jects. In  this  mode  our  citizens  are  wantonly  snatched 
from  their  country  and  their  families  ;  deprived  of  their 
liberty,  and  doomed  to  an  ignominious  and  slavish  bond- 
age ;  compelled  to  fight  the  battles  of  a  foreign  country, 
and  often  to  perish  in  them.  Our  flag  has  given  them  no 
protection ;  it  has  been  unceasingly  violated,  and  our  ves- 
sels exposed  to  danger  by  the  loss  of  the  men  taken  from 
them.  "  Your  committee  need  not  remark,  that  while 
this  practice  is  continued,  it  is  impossible  for  the  United 
States  to  consider  themselves  an  independent  nation. 
Every  new  case  is  a  new  proof  of  their  degradation.  Its 
continuance  is  the  more  unjustifiable,  because  the  United 
States  have  repeatedly  proposed  to  the  British  government 
an  arrangement  which  would  secure  to  it  the  controul  of 
its  own  people.  An  exemption  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  from  this  degrading  oppression,  and  their 

flag  from  violation,  is  all  that  they  have  sought. 

"  Your  committee  would  be  much  gratified  if  they  could 
close  here  the  detail  of  British  wrongs  ;  but  it  is  their  duty 
to  recite  another  act  of  still  greater  malignity  than  any  of 
those  which  have  already  been  brought  to  your  view.  The 
attempt  to  dismember  our  Union,  and  overthrow  our  ex- 
cellent constitution  by  a  secret  mission,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  foment  discontents  and  excite  insurrection  against 
the  constituted  authorities  and  laws  of  the  nation,  as  lately 
disclosed  by  the  agent  employed  in  it,  affords  full  proof  that 
there  is  no  hound  to  the  hostility  of  the  British  government 
towards  the  United  States:  no  act,  however  unjustifiable, 
which  it  would  not  commit  to  accomplish  their  ruin.  This 
attempt  excites  the  greater  horrour,  from  the  considera- 
tion that  it  was  made  while  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  were  at  peace,  and  an  amicable  negotiation  was 
depending  between  them  for  the  accommodation  of  their 
differences,  through  public  ministers  regularly  authorized 
for  the  purpose. 


148  HISTORY   OF   THE 

*'  The  United  States  have  beheld  with  unexampled  for- 
bearance this  continued  series  of  hostile  encroachments  on 
their  rights  and  interests,  in  the  hope,  that  yielding  to  the 
force  of  friendly  remonstrances,  often  repeated,  the  British 
government  might  adopt  a  more  just  policy  towards  them  ; 
but  that  hope  no  longer  exists.  They  have  also  weighed 
impartially  the  reasons  which  have  been  urged  by  the 
British  government  in  vindication  of  those  encroachments, 
and  found  in  them  neither  justification  nor  apology. 

"  The  British  government  has  alleged,  in  vindication  of 
the  orders  in  council,  that  they  were  resorted  to  as  a  reta- 
liation on  France,  for  similar  aggressions  committed  by 
her  on  our  neutral  trade  with  the  British  dominions.  But 
how  has  this  plea  been  supported  ?  The  dates  of  British 
and  French  aggressions  are  well  known  to  the  world. 
Their  origin  and  progress  have  been  marked  with  too 
wide  and  destructive  a  waste  of  the  property  of  our  fellow 
citizens,  to  have  been  forgotten.  The  decree  of  Berlin,  of 
November  21st,  1806,  was  the  first  aggression  of  France 
in  the  present  war.  Eighteen  months  had  then  elapsed 
after  the  attack  made  by  Great  Britain  on  our  neutral 
trade  with  the  colonies  of  France  and  her  allies,  and  six 
months  from  the  date  of  the  proclamation  of  May,  1806. 
Even  on  the  7th  of  January,  1807,  the  date  of  the  first 
British  order  in  council,  so  short  a  term  had  elapsed  after 
the  Berlin  decree,  that  it  was  hardly  possible  that  the 
intelligence  of  it  should  have  reached  the  United  States. 
A  retaliation  which  is  to  produce  its  effect  by  operating  on 
a  neutral  power,  ought  not  to  be  resorted  to  till  the  neutral 
had  justified  it,  by  a  culpable  acquiescence  in  the  unlawful 
act  o-f  the  other  belligerent.  It  ought  to  be  delayed  until 
after  suflicient  time  had  been  allowed  to  the  neutral  to  re- 
monstrate against  the  measures  complained  of,  to  receive 
an  answer,  and  to  act  on  it,  which  had  not  been  done  in 
the  present  instance.  And  when  the  order  of  November 
11th  was  issued,  it  is  well  known  that  a  minister  of  France 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  149 

had  declared  to  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United 
States  at  Paris,  that  it  was  not  intended  that  the  decree 
of  Berlin  should  apply  to  the  United  States.  It  is  equally 
well  known  that  no  American  vessel  had  then  been  con^ 
demned  under  it,  or  seizure  been  made,  with  which  the 
British  government  was  acquainted.  The  facts  prove  in- 
contestably  that  the  measures  of  France,  however  unjus- 
tifiable in  themselves,  were  nothing  more  than  a  pretext 
for  those  of  England.  And  of  the  insufficiency  of  that  pre- 
text, ample  proof  has  already  been  afforded  by  the  British 
government  itself,  and  in  the  most  impressive  form.  Al- 
though it  was  declared  that  the  orders  in  council  were  re- 
taliatory on  France  for  her  decrees,  it  was  also  declared, 
and  in  the  orders  themselves,  that  owing  to  the  superiority 
of  the  British  navy,  by  which  the  fleets  of  France  and  her 
allies  were  confined  within  their  own  ports,  the  French 
decrees  were  considered  only  as  empty  threats. 

''  It  is  no  justification  of  the  wrongs  of  one  power,  that 
the  like  were  committed  by  another ;  nor  ought  the  fact, 
if  true,  to  have  been  urged  by  either,  as  it  could  aflford  no 
proof  of  its  love  of  justice,  of  its  magnanimity,  or  even  of 
its  courage.  It  is  more  worthy  the  government  of  a  great 
nation,  to  relieve  than  to  assail  the  injured.  Nor  can  a  re- 
petition of  the  wrongs  by  another  power  repair  the  violated 
right  or  wounded  honour  of  the  injured  party.  An  utter 
inability  alone  to  resist,  could  justify  a  quiet  surrender  of 
our  rights,  and  degrading  submission  to  the  will  of  others. 
To  that  condition  the  United  States  are  not  reduced,  nor 
do  they  fear  it.  That  they  ever  consented  to  discuss  with 
either  power  the  misconduct  of  the  other  is  a  proof  of  their 
love  of  peace,  of  their  moderation,  and  of  the  hope  which 
they  still  indulged,  that  friendly  appeals  to  just  and  gene- 
rous sentiments  would  not  be  made  to  them  in  vain.  But 
the  motive  was  mistaken,  if  their  forbearance  was  imputed 
either  to  the  want  of  a  just  sensibility  to  their  wrongs,  or  a 
determination,  if  suitable  redress  v/as  not  obtained,  to  re- 


150  -     HISTORY    OF    THE 

sent  them.  The  time  has  now  arrived  when  this  system 
of  reasoning  must  cease.  It  would  be  insulting  to  repeat 
it.  It  would  be  degrading  to  hear  it.  The  United  States 
must  act  as  an  independent  nation,  and  assert  their  rights, 
and  avenge  their  wrongs,  according  to  their  own  estimate 
of  them,  with  the  party  who  commits  them,  holding  it  re- 
sponsible for  its  own  misdeeds,  unmitigated  by  those  of 
another. 

"  For  the  difference  made  between  Great  Britain  and 
France,  by  the  application  of  the  non-importation  act  against 
England  only,  the  motive  has  been  already  too  often  explain- 
ed, and  is  too  well  known  to  require  further  illustration.  In 
the  commercial  restrictions  to  which  the  United  States  re- 
sorted as  an  evidence  of  their  sensibility,  and  a  mild  reta- 
liation of  their  wrongs,  they  invariably  placed  both  powers 
on  the  same  footing,  holding  out  to  each  in  respect  to  itself, 
the  same  accommodation,  in  case  it  accepted  the  condition 
offered,  and  in  respect  to  the  other  the  same  restraint  if  it 
refused.  Had  the  British  government  confirmed  the  ar- 
rangement which  was  entered  into  with  the  British  minis- 
ter in  1809,  and  France  maintained  her  decrees,  with 
France  would  the  United  States  have  had  to  resist,  with 
the  firmness  belonging  to  their  character,  the  continued 
violation  of  their  rights.  The  committee  do  not  hesitate 
to  declare,  that  France  has  greatly  injured  the  United 
States,  and  that  satisfactory  reparation  has  not  yet  been 
made  for  many  of  those  injuries.  But  that  is  a  concern 
which  the  United  States  will  look  to  and  settle  for  themselves. 
The  high  character  of  the  American  people  is  a  sufficient 
pledge  to  the  world  that  they  w\\\  not  fail  to  settle  it,  on 
conditions  which  they  have  a  right  to  claim. 

"  More  recently  the  true  policy  of  the  British  govern- 
ment towards  the  United  States,  has  been  completely  un- 
folded. It  has  been  publicly  declared  by  those  in  power, 
that  the  orders  in  council  should  not  be  repealed  until  the 
French  government  had  revoked  all  its  internal  restraints 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  151 

on  the  British  commerce  ;  and  that  the  trade  of  the  United 
States  with  France  and  her  alHes,  should  be  prohibited 
until  Great  Britain  was  also  allowed  to  trade  with  them* 
By  this  declaration  it  appears,  that  to  satisfy  the  preten- 
sions of  the  British  government,  the  United  States  must 
join  Great  Britain  in  the  war  with  France,  and  prosecute 
the  war  until  France  should  be  subdued  ;  for  without  her 
subjugation,  it  were  in  vain  to  presume  on  such  a  conces- 
sion. The  hostility  of  the  British  government  to  these 
states  has  been  still  further  disclosed.  It  has  been  made 
manifest  that  the  United  States  are  considered  by  it  as  the 
commercial  rival  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  their  prospe- 
rity and  growth  are  incompatible  with  her  welfare.  When 
all  these  circumstances  are  taken  into  consideration,  it  is 
impossible  for  your  committee  to  doubt  the  motives  which 
have  governed  the  British  ministry  in  all  its  measures  to- 
wards the  United  States  since  the  year  1805.  Equally  is 
it  impossible  to  doubt,  longer,  the  course  which  the  United 
States  ought  to  pursue  towards  Great  Britain. 

"  From  this  review  of  the  multiplied  wrongs  of  the  Bri- 
tish government  since  the  commencement  of  the  present 
war,  it  must  be  evident  to  the  impartial  world,  that  the 
contest  which  is  now  forced  on  the  United  States,  is  radi- 
cally a  contest  for  their  sovereignty  and  independence. 
Your  committee  will  not  enlarge  on  any  of  the  injuries, 
however  great,  which  have  had  a  transitory  effect.  They 
wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  those  of  a  per- 
manent nature  only,  which  intrench  so  deeply  on  our  most 
important  rights,  and  wound  so  extensively  and  vitally  our 
best  interests,  as  could  not  fail  to  deprive  the  United  States 
of  the  principal  advantages  of  their  revolution,  if  submit- 
ted to.  The  controul  of  our  commerce  by  Great  Britain 
in  regulating,  at  pleasure,  and  expelling  it  almost  from  the 
ocean  ;  the  oppressive  manner  in  which  these  regulations 
have  been  carried  into  effect,  by  seizing  and  confiscating 
such   of  our  vessels,  with  their  cargoes,  as  were  said  to 


152  HISTORY    OF    THE 

have  violated  her  edicts,  often  without  previous  warning 
of  their  danger  ;  the  impressment  of  our  citizens  from  on 
board  our  own  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  and  elsewhere,  and 
holding  them  in  bondage  till  it  suited  the  convenience  of 
their  oppressors  to  deliver  them  up,  are  encroachments  of 
that  high  and  dangerous  tendency,  which  could  not  fail  to 
produce  that  pernicious  effect :  nor  would  these  bo  the  only 
consequences  that  would  result  from  it.  The  British  govern 
ment  might,  for  a  while,  be  satisfied  with  the  ascendency 
thus  gained  over  us,  but  its  pretensions  would  soon  increase. 
The  proof  which  so  complete  and  disgraceful  a  submission 
to  its  authority  would  afford  of  our  degeneracy,  could  not 
fail  to  inspire  confidence,  that  there  was  no  limit  to  which 
its  usurpations,  and  our  degradation,  might  not  be  carried. 

"Your  committee,  believing  that  the  freeborn  sons  of 
America  are  worthy  to  enjoy  the  liberty  which  their  fa- 
thers purchased  at  the  price  of  so  much  blood  and  trea- 
sure, and  seeing  in  the  measures  adopted  by  Great  Britain, 
a  course  commenced  and  persisted  in,  which  must  lead  to 
a  loss  of  national  character  and  independence,  feel  no  he- 
sitation in  advising  resistance  by  force  ;  in  which  the  Ame- 
ricans of  the  present  day  will  prove  to  the  enemy  and  to  the 
world,  that  we  have  not  only  inherited  that  liberty  which 
our  fathers  gave  us,  but  also  the  will  and  the  power  to  main- 
tain it.  Relying  on  the  patriotism  of  the  nation,  and  confi- 
dently trusting  that  the  Lord  of  Hosts  will  go  with  us  to  bat- 
tle in  a  righteous  cause,  and  crown  our  efforts  with  success, 
your  committee  recommend  an  immediate  appeal  to  arms." 

This  manifesto  was  followed  by  an  act  of  Congress,  con- 
taining a  formal  declaration  of  war,  in  the  following  words : 

^^An  act  declaring  War  between  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland^  and  the  dependencies  thereof 
and  the  United  States  of  America  aiid  their  territories. 

^''Be  it  enacted,  &c.  that  war  be  and  the  same  is  hereby 
declared  to  exist  between  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  153^ 

Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the  dependencies  thereof,  and  the 
United  States  of  America  and  their  territories ;  and  that 
the  President  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  authorized  to 
use  the  whole  land  and  naval  force  of  the  United  States  to 
carry  the  same  into  effect,  and  to  issue  to  private  armed 
vessels  of  the  United  States  commissions  or  letters  of 
marque  and  general  reprisal,  in  such  form  as  he  shall 
think  proper,  and  under  the  seal  of  the  United  States, 
against  the  vessels,  goods,  and  effects  of  the  government 
of  the  said  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 
and  the  subjects  thereof." — [Approved,  June  I8th,  1812.] 

On   the  next  day,  viz.  June  19th,  1812,  the  following 
proclamation  was  issued  : — 

"  By  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America — 
A  Proclamation. 

**  Whereas  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  by  virtue 
of  the  constituted  authority  vested  in  them,  have  declared 
by  their  act  bearing  date  the  18th  day  of  the  present 
month,  that  war  exists  between  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the  dependencies  thereof, 
and  the  United  States  of  America  and  their  territories  ; 
now,  therefore  I,  James  Madison,  President  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  do  hereby  proclaim  the  same  to  all 
whom  it  may  concern  :  and  I  do  specially  enjoin  on  all 
persons  holding  offices,  civil  or  military,  under  the  authori- 
ty of  the  United  States,  that  they  be  vigilant  and  zealous  in 
discharging  the  duties  respectively  incident  thereto  :  and  I 
do  moreover  exhort  all  the  good  people  of  the  United  States, 
as  they  love  their  country  ;  as  they  value  the  precious  heri- 
tage derived  from  the  virtue  and  valour  of  their  fathers ; 
as  they  feel  the  wrongs  which  have  forced  on  them  the 
last  resort  of  injured  nations  ;  and  as  they  consult  the  best 
means,  under  the  blessing  of  Divine  Providence,  of  abridg- 
ing its  calamities,  that  they  exert  themselves  in  preserving 
order,  in  promoting  concord,  in  maintaining  the  authority 
and  efficacy  of  the  laws,  and  in  supporting  and  invigorat- 

20 


154  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ing  all  the  measures  which  may  be  adopted  by  the  consti- 
tuted authorities,  for  obtaining  a  speedy,  a  just,  and  au 
honourable  peace. 

"  Done  at  Washington,  the  19th  day  of  June,  1812,  &:-c. 

"James  Madison. 
*'  By  the  President.     James  Monroe,  Sec.  of  State." 

On  the  18th  of  June,  1812,  the  day  on  which  Congress 
declared  war  against  Great  Britain,  Mr.  Russell,  United 
States  charge  d'affaires  at  London,  wrote  as  follows  to  the 
Secretary  cf  State — 
'  London,  June  18,  1812. 

**  I  hand  you  herein  the  Times  of  yesterday,  containing 
the  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  preceding 
evening,  relative  to  the  orders  in  council.  From  this  de- 
bate it  appears  that  these  measures  are  to  be  abandoned, 
but  as  yet  no  official  extinction  of  them  has  been  announc- 
ed. The  time  already  elapsed  since  the  declaration  of 
Lord  Castlereagh,  excites  a  suspicion  that  either  the  pro- 
mised revocation  will  not  take  place,  or  what  is  more  pro- 
bable, some  other  measure,  equally  unjust,  is  now  under 
consideration,  to  replace  those  which  are  to  be  revoked.  \ 

"I  hope,  until  the  doings  here  are  ascertained  with  cer- 
tainty and  precision,  there  will  be  no  relaxation  on  our 
part." 

On  the  30th  of  June  Mr.  Russell  wrote  as  follows — 

"  I  have  at  length  had  the  satisfaction  to  announce  to 
you,  in  my  letters  of  the  26th  instant,  the  revocation  of 
the  orders  in  council. 

"You  will,  without  doubt,  be  somewhat  surprised  that 
this  is  founded  on  the  French  decree  of  the  28th  of  April, 
1811. 

V  The  real  cause  of  the  revocation  is  the  measures  of 
our  government.  These  measures  have  produced  a  de- 
gree of  distress  among  the  manufacturers  of  this  country 
that  was  becoming  intolerable ;  and  an  apprehension  of 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  155 

Still  greater  misery,  from  the  calamities  of  war,  drove 
them  to  speak  a  language  which  could  not  be  misunder- 
stood or  disregarded."  \ 

The  following  correspondence  and  documents  will  ex- 
plain Mr.  Russell's  allusion  to  the  French  decree  of  the 
28th  of  April,  1811. 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Barlow,  to  the  duke  of 
Bassano,  dated  May  1,  1812. 
/  '*  It  is  inuch  to  be  desired  that  the  French  government 
would  now  make  and  publish  an  authentic  act,  declaring 
the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  as  relative  to  the  United 
States,  to  have  ceased  in  November,  1810,  declaring  that 
they  have  not  been  applied  in  any  instance,  since  that  time, 
and  that  they  shall  not  be  so  applied  in  future.'*' 

It  has  already  been  shown,  that  whatever  our  govern- 
ment thought  of  blockades  in  1799,  in  1806,  and  for 
some  time  afterwards,  they  were  very  little  disturbed 
by  that  which  the  British  government  had  established 
from  the  Elbe  to  Brest;  nor,  as  far  as  their  public  docu- 
ments show,  was  it  ever  considered  worthy  of  serious 
remonstrance  or  complaint,  until  it  became  necessary  to 
exercise  their  diplomatic  skill  between  Great  Britain 
and  France.  The  importance  of  it,  as  bearing  an  earlier 
date  than  the  Berlin  decree,  to  the  French  government, 
has  already  been  mentioned.  It  will  be  recollected,  that 
in  January,  1810,  the  French  minister,  in  answer  to  a  note 
from  General  Armstrong  on  the  subject,  had  expressed  the 
willingness  of  his  majesty  the  emperor  to  repeal  his  de- 
crees, on  condition  that  the  British  government  would  re- 
voke their  blockades  of  France  of  a  date  prior  to  the  Ber- 
lin decree.  In  the  mean  time,  however,  his  imperial  ma- 
jesty had  issued  a  third  decree  more  extravagant  in  its  ob- 
ject, and  more  injurious  to  the  neutral  rights  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  than  either  the  Berlin  or  Milan  decree.  It 
bears  date  at  Rambouillet,  March  23d,  1810,  and  is  of  the 
following  tenour — 


156  HISTORY    OF   THE 

"Napoleon,  «fec.  &c.  &c.  Considering  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  by  an  act  dated  the  1st  of 
March,  1809,  which  forbids  the  entrance  of  the  ports,  har- 
bours, and  rivers  of  the  said  states,  to  all  French  vessels, 
orders — 

"  1st.  That  after  the  20th  of  May  following,  vessels  un- 
der the  French  flag,  which  shall  arrive  in  the  United 
States,  shall  be  seized  and  confiscated  as  well  as  their  car- 
goes :  2d.  That  after  the  same  epoch,  no  merchandise  or 
produce,  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  France  or  her  colo- 
nies, can  be  imported  into  the  said  United  States  from  any 
foreign  port  or  place  whatsoever,  under  penalty  of  seizure, 
confiscation,  and  a  fine  of  three  times  the  value  of  the 
merchandise :  3d.  That  American  vessels  cannot  go  to  any 
port  of  France,  of  her  colonies,  or  dependencies :  We  have 
decreed,  and  do  decree  as  follows: 

"Art.  1.  All  vessels  navigating  under  the  flag  of  the 
United  States,  or  possessed  in  whole  or  in  part  by  any  citi- 
zen or  subject  of  that  power,  which,  counting  from  the 
20th  of  May,  1809,  have  entered,  or  shall  enter  into  the 
ports  of  our  empire,  of  our  colonies,  or  of  the  countries 
occupied  by  our  arms,  shall  be  seized,  and  the  product  of 
the  sales  shall  be  deposited  in  the  surplus  fund  (caisse 
d'amortissement.) 

'•  There  shall  be  excepted  from  this  regulation,  the  ves- 
sels which  shall  be  charged  with  despatches,  or  with  com- 
missions of  the  government  of  the  said  States,  and  who 
shall  not  have  either  cargoes  or  merchandise  on  board." 

American  property  to  a  large  amount  was  seized  under 
this  extraordinary  decree,  and  declared  forfeited.  On  the 
5th  of  July  following  Mr.  Secretary  Smith  addressed  a  let- 
ter to  General  Armstrong,  from  which  the  following  ex- 
tract is  taken —  * 

"The  arrival  of  the  John  Adams  brought  your  letters 
of  the  1st,  <fec.  and  16th  of  April. 
,.    "From  that  of  the  16th  of  April  it  appears  t^t  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  157 

seizures  of  the  American  property,  lately  made,  had  been 
followed  up  by  its  actual  sale,  and  that  the  proceeds  had 
been  deposited  in  the  em[)eror's  caisse  prive.  You  have 
presented  in  such  colours  the  enormity  of  this  outrage, 
that  I  have  only  to  signify  to  you,  that  the  President  en- 
tirely approves  the  step  that  has  been  taken  by  you,  and 
that  he  does  not  doubt  that  it  will  be  followed  by  you,  or 
the  person  who  may  succeed  you,  with  such  farther  inter- 
positions as  may  be  deemed  advisable.  He  instructs  you 
particularly  to  make  the  French  government  sensible  of 
the  deep  impression  made  here  hy  so  signal  an  aggression  on 
the  principles  of  justice  and  of  good  faith,  and  to  demand 
every  reparation  of  which  the  case  is  susceptible.  If  it  be 
not  the  purpose  of  the  French  government  to  remove  every 
idea  of  friendly  adjustment  with  the  United  States,  it  would 
seem  impossible  but  that  a  reconsideration  of  this  violent 
proceeding  must  lead  to  a  redress  of  it  as  a  preliminary 
to  a  general  accommodation  of  the  differences  between  the 
two  countries. 

"At  the  date  of  the  last  communication  from  Mr.  Pink- 
ney,  he  had  not  obtained  from  the  British  government  an 
acceptance  of  the  condition  on  which  the  French  govern- 
ment was  willing  to  concur,  in  putting  an  end  to  all  the 
edicts  of  both  against  our  neutral  commerce.  If  he  should 
afterwards  have  succeeded,  you  will  of  course,  on  receiving 
information  of  the  fact,  immediately  claim  from  the  French 
government  the  fulfillment  of  its  promise,  and  by  trans- 
mitting the  result  to  Mr.  Pinkney,  you  will  co-operate  with 
him  in  completing  the  removal  of  all  the  illegal  obstruc- 
tions to  our  commerce. 

"Among  the  documents  now  sent  is  another  copy  of  the 
act  of  Congress,  repealing  the  non-intercourse  law,  but 
authorizing  a  renewal  of  it  against  Great  Britain,  in  case 
France  should  repeal  her  edicts  and  Great  Britain  should 
refuse  to  follow  her  example,  and  vice  versa.  You  have 
been  already  informed  that  the  President  is  ready  to  ex- 


158  HISTORY   OF   THE 

ercise  the  power  vested  in  him  for  such  a  purpose,  as  soon 
as  the  occasion  shall  arise.  Should  the  other  experiment, 
in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Pinkney,  have  failed,  you  will  make 
the  act  of  Congress,  and  the  disposition  of  the  President, 
the  subject  of  a  formal  communication  to  the  French 
government,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  any  ground, 
even  specious,  on  which  the  overture  specified  in  the  act 
can  be  declined. 

"  If  the  non-intercourse  law,  in  any  of  its  modifications, 
was  objectionable  to  the  emperor  of  the  French,  that  law 
no  longer  exists. 

"  If  he  be  ready,  as  has  been  declared  in  the  letter  of 
the  duke  of  Cadore  of  February  14,  to  do  justice  to  the 
United  States,  in  the  case  of  a  pledge  on  their  part  not  to 
submit  to  the  British  edicts,  the  opportunity  for  making 
good  the  declaration  is  now  afforded.  Instead  of  submis- 
sion, the  President  is  now^  ready,  by  renewing  the  non- 
intercourse  act  against  Great  Britain,  to  oppose  to  her 
orders  in  council  a  measure,  which  is  of  a  character  that 
ought  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  expectation.  If  it  should 
be  necessary  for  you  to  meet  the  question  whether  the 
non-intercourse  will  be  renewed  against  Great  Britain,  in 
case  she  should  not  comprehend,  in  the  repeal  of  her  edicts, 
her  blockades,  which  are  not  consistent  with  the  law  of 
nations,  you  may,  should  it  be  found  necessary,  let  it  be 
understood,  that  a  repeal  of  the  illegal  blockades  of  a  date 
prior  to  the  Berlin  decree^  namely,  that  of  May ,  1806,  will 
he  included  in  the  condition  required  of  Great  Britain,  that 
particular  blockade  having  been  avowed  to  be  compre- 
hended in,  and  of  course  identified  with  the  orders  in 
council.  With  respect  to  blockades  of  a  subsequent  date 
or  not,  against  France,  you  will  press  the  reasonableness 
of  leaving  them,  together  with  future  blockades  not  war- 
ranted by  public  law,  to  be  proceeded  against  by  the 
United  States  in  the  manner  they  may  choose  to  adopt. 
As  has  been  heretofore  stated  to  you,  a  satisfactory  pro- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  159 

vision  for    restoring    the    property    lately    surprised   and 
seized  by  the  order  or  at  the  instance  of  the  French  govern- 
ment, must  he  combined  with  a  repeal  of  the  French  edicts^ 
with  a  view  to  a  non-intercourse  with  Great  Britain  :  such 
a  provision  being  an  indispensable  evidence  of  the  just 
purpose  of  France  towards  the  United  States.     And  you 
will,  moreover,  be  careful,  in  arranging  such  a  provision 
for  that  particular  case  of  spoliations,  not  to  weaken  the 
ground  on  which  a  redress  of  others  may  be  justly  pursued." 
From  the  numerous  quotations  which  have  been  made, 
and  from  a  great  number  of  passages  which    might  be 
added,  it  is  perfectly  obvious,  that  our  negotiations  respect- 
ing the  revocation  of  the  British  orders  in  council  were 
greatly  embarrassed  by  the  form  of  the  inquiry  made  of 
the  French  minister  by  General  Armstrong,  by  order  of 
the  Secretary  of  State,  in  January,  1810.     That  inquiry 
was  not  limited  to  what  were  the  conditions  on  which  his 
majesty  the  emperor  would  annul  the  Berlin  decree,  but  it 
was  asked  whether  he  would  do  so  if  Great  Britain  revoked 
her  blockades  of  a  date  anterior  to  that  of  the  Berlin  decree  ? 
The  subject  was  alluded  to  very  often  in  the  course  of  the 
correspondence ;  and  on  the  26th  of  March,  1810,  Lord 
Wellesley,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  whether  the  blockade 
of  May,  1806,  had  been  withdrawn,  said — ''  The  blockade, 
notified  by  Great  Britain  in  May,  1806,  has  never  been 
formally  withdrawn.     It  cannot  therefore  be  accurately 
stated,    that   the  restrictions    which    it    established,    rest 
altogether  on  the  order  of  council  of  the  7th  of  January, 
1807 :  they  are  comprehended  under  the  more  extensive 
restrictions  of  that  order.    No  other  blockade  of  the  ports 
of  France  was  instituted  by  Great  Britain,  between  the 
I6lh  of  May,  1806,  and  the  7th  of  January,  1807,  except- 
ing the  blockade  of  Venice,  instituted  on  the  27th  of  July, 
1806,  which  is  still  in  force."    It  seems  from  this  declara- 
tion of  the  British  minister,  that  every  thing   except  a 
formal  revocation  had  taken  place,  the   decree,  as   Mr. 


160  HISTORY    OF   THE 

Pinkney  justly  considered  it,  had  been  absorbed  in  the 
orders  of  council  of  January,  1807.    But  as  this  last  order 
of  council  was  of  a  subsequent  date  to  the  Berlin  decree,  it 
would  not  have  answered  the  object   which  the  French 
government  had  in  view,  which,  as  has  been  already  re- 
marked, was  to  obtain  an  admission,  at  least  by  implica- 
tion, that  the  British  government  first  adopted  the  policy 
of  interfering  with  the  rights  of  neutrals.     For  no  other 
purpose  than  that  of  enabling  the  French  government  to 
gain  this  advantage  over  the  British,  was  this  subject  of  con- 
troversy first  started,  and  afterwards  continued  between  the 
parties;  thus  adding  one  more  proof,  that  our  government 
deemed  it  expedient  at  all  times  to  keep  on  hand  some 
distinct  subject  of  controversy  with  Great  Britain.  In  con- 
firmation of  the  idea  that  the  blockading  order  of  May, 
1806,  was  not  in  force,  Mr.  Pinkney  wrote   to  General 
Armstrong  on  the  6th  of  April,  1810,  in  the   following 
manner — "  I    do   not   know  whether  the  statement  con- 
tained in  my  letter  of  the  27th  of  last  month  will  enable 
you  to  obtain  the  recall  of  the  Berlin  decree.     Certainly 
the  inference  from  that  statement  is  that  the  blockade  of 
1806  is  virtually  at  an  end,  being  merged  and  compre- 
hended in  an  order  in  council,  issued  after  the  date  of  the 
edict  of  Berlin.     I  am,  however,  about  to  try  to  obtain  a 
formal  revocation  of  that  blockade  (and  that  of  Venice,)  or 
at  least  a  precise  declaration  that  they  are  not  in  force. 
It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  our  government  should 
have  shown  such   a  degree  of  meekness  and  humility  to- 
wards France,  whilst  they  were  manifesting  such  a  lofty 
air,  and  such  a  peremptory  tone,  in  their  correspondence 
with  Great  Britain.     The  treatment  they  received  from 
the    French   government  was   not  only   supercilious  and 
haughty,  but  the  language  of  their  official  communications, 
in  relation  to  the  very  subject  in  discussion,  contemptuous 
and  insulting.     On  the  17th  of  February,  1810,  General 
Armstrong  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  161 

enclosing  a  note  which  he  had  received  from  M.  Cham- 
pagny,  from  which  the  following  passages  are  extracted : 

"  His  majesty  could  place  no  reliance  on  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  United  States,  who  having  no  ground  of  com- 
plaint against  France,  comprised  her  in  their  acts  of  ex- 
clusion, and  since  the  month  of  May  have  forbidden  the 
entrance  of  their  ports  to  French  vessels,  under  the  penalty 
of  confiscation.  As  soon  as  his  majesty  was  informed  of 
this  measure,  he  considered  himself  bound  to  order  repri- 
sals on  American  vessels  not  only  in  his  territory,  but 
likewise  in  the  countries  which  are  under  his  influence. 
In  the  ports  of  Holland,  of  Spain,  of  Italy,  and  of  Naples, 
American  vessels  have  been  seized,  because  the  Americans 
have  seized  French  vessels,  ^he  Americans  cannot  hesi- 
tate as  to  the  part  lohich  they  "^  are  to  take.  They  ought 
either  to  tear  to  pieces  the  act  of  their  independence,  and  to 
become  again  as  lefore  the  revolution,  the  subjects  of  England, 
or  to  take  such  measures  as  that  their  commerce  and  industry 
should  not  he  tariffed  (tarifes)  hy  the  English,  which  renders 
them  more  dependent  than  Jamaica,  which  at  least  has  its  as- 
sembly of  representatives  audits  privileges.  Men  without  just 
political  views,  (sans  politique,)  without  honour,  without  en- 
ergy, may  alledge  that  payment  of  the  tribute  imposed  hy 
England  may  he  submitted  to  because  it  is  light ;  but  why 
will  they  not  perceive  that  the  English  will  no  sooner  have 
obtained  the  admission  of  the  principle,  than  they  will 
raise  the  tariff  in  such  a  way  that  the  burden,  at  first  light, 
becoming  insupportable,  it  will  then  be  necessary  to,  Jight 
for  interest,  after  having  refused  to  fight  for  honour.]    \ 

"  The  undersigned  avows  with  frankness,  that  France 
has  every  thing  to  gain  from  receiving  well  the  Americans 
in  her  ports.  Her  commercial  relations  with  neutrals  are 
advantageous  to  her.  She  is  in  no  way  jealous  of  their 
prosperity  ;  great,  powerful  and  rich,  she  is  satisfied  when, 
by  her  own  commerce,  or  by  that  of  neutrals,  her  expor- 

21 


162        '  HISTORY   OF   THi: 

tations  give  to  her  agriculture  and  her  fabricks  the  proper 
developement. 

*'  It  is  now  thirty  years  since  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica founded,  in  the  bosom  of  the  new  world,  an  indepen- 
dent country,  at  the  price  of  the  blood  of  so  many  immor- 
tal men,  who  perished  on  the  field  of  battle  to  throw  off 
the  leaden  yoke  of  the  English  monarch.  These  gene- 
rous men  were  far  from  supposing,  when  they  thus  sacri- 
ficed their  blood  for  the  independence  of  America,  that 
there  would  so  soon  be  a  question  whether  there  should  be 
imposed  upon  it  a  yoke  more  heavy  than  that  which  they 
had  thrown  off,  by  subjecting  its  industry  to  a  tariff  of 
British  legislation,  and  to  the  orders  in  council  of  1807. 

"  If  then  the  minister  of  America  can  enter  into  an 
engagement,  that  the  American  vessels  will  not  submit  to 
the  orders  in  council  of  England  of  November,  1807,  nor 
to  any  decree  of  blockade,  unless  this  blockade  should  be 
real,  the  undersigned  is  authorized  to  conclude  every  spe- 
cies of  convention  tending  to  renew  the  treaty  of  com- 
merce with  America,  and  in  which  all  the  measures  pro- 
per to  consolidate  the  commerce  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
Americans  shall  be  provided  for." 

It  is  also  remarkable,  that  the  same  Administration, 
whose  dignity  was  so  suddenly  affronted,  and  whose  re- 
sentment was  so  greatly  roused,  by  a  single  expression  in 
Mr.  Jackson's  letter,  relating  to  the  rejection  of  the  ar- 
rangement with  Mr.  Erskine,  as  to  refuse  to  hold  any  in- 
tercourse with  that  minister,  should  have  borne,  with  such 
philosophical  meekness  and  coolness,  the  foregoing  lan- 
guage of  M.  Champagny.  It  is  not  easy  to  imagine  phra- 
seology more  insolent,  or  sentiments  more  degrading  to 
our  government  and  country.  And  yet  General  Armstrong 
was  not  recalled;  nor,  in  examining  the  correspondence 
relating  to  this  subject,  has  any  order  even  to  remonstrate 
against  the  indignity  offered  to  both  been  discovered. 

In  a  little  more  than  a  month  after  the  date  of  this  let- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  163 

ier,  the  Rambouillet  decree,  which  has  already  been  cited, 
was  issued.  No  one  who  reads  it  can  hesitate  about  its 
true  character ;  which  was  Httle  better  than  a  license  to 
commit  piracy,  in  a  manner  the  most  base  and  infamous. 

On  the  5th  of  August  following,  General  Armstrong 
received  a  note  from  the  duke  of  Cadore,  (Champagny) 
containing  a  formal  declaration  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees  were  both  revoked,  and  that  after  the  1st  of  No- 
vember ensuing  they  would  cease  to  have  effect.  This 
note  is  couched  in  language  equally  extraordinary  with 
that  from  which  we  have  copied  the  foregoing  extracts. 
The  following  passages  are  quoted — 

"  Sir — I  have  laid  before  his  majesty,  the  emperor  and 
king,  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  1st  of  May,  taken  from 
the  gazette  of  the  United  States,  which  you  have  sent  to 
me. 

"His  majesty  could  have  wished  that  this  act,  and  all 
the  other  acts  of  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
which  interest  France,  had  always  been  officially  made 
Imoivn  to  him.  In  general,  he  has  only  had  a  knowledge  of 
them  indirectly^  and  after  a  long  interval  of  time.  There 
havp  resulted  from  this  delay  serious  inconveniences,  which 
would  not  have  existed  if  these  acts  had  been  promptly 
and  officially  communicated, 

"The  emperor  had  applauded  the  general  embargo,  laid 
by  the  United  States  on  all  their  vessels,  because  that 
measure,  if  it  has  been  prejudicial  to  France,  had  in  it  at 
least  nothing  offensive  to  her  honour." 

"  The  act  of  the  1st  of  March  has  raised  the  embargo, 
and  substituted  for  it  a  measure  the  most  injurious  to  the 
interests  of  France. 

'*  This  act,  of  which  the  emperor  knew  nothing  until 
very  lately,  interdicted  to  American  vessels  the  commerce 
of  France,  at  the  time  it  authorized  that  to  Spain, 
Naples,  and  Holland,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  countries  under 
French  influence,  and  denounced  confiscation  against  all 


164  HISTORY    OF   THE 

French  vessels  which  should  enter  the  ports  of  America. 
Reprisal  was  a  right,  and  commanded  hy  the  dignity  of 
France,  a  circumstance  on  which  it  was  impossible  to  make 
a  compromise  (de  transigir.)  The  sequester  of  all  the 
American  vessels  in  France  has  been  the  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  measure  taken  by  Congress. 

"  Now  Congress  retrace  their  steps,  (revient  sur  ses  pas ;) 
they  revoke  the  act  of  the  1st  of  March;  the  ports  of 
America  are  open  to  French  commerce,  and  France  is  no 
longer  interdicted  to  the  Americans.  In  short.  Congress 
engages  to  oppose  itself  to  that  one  of  the  belligerent 
powers  which  should  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  rights  of 
neutrals. 

"In  this  new  state  of  things,  I  am  authorized  to  declare 
to  you,  sir,  that  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  are  re- 
voked, and  that  after  the  first  of  November  they  will  cease 
to  have  effect ;  it  being  understood  that,  in  consequence  of 
this  declaration,  the  English  shall  revoke  their  orders  in 
council,  and  renounce  the  new  principles  of  blockade  which 
they  have  wished  to  establish,  or,  that  the  United  States, 
conformably  to  the  act  you  have  just  communicated,  shall 
cause  their  rights  to  be  respected  by  the  English. 

"It  is  with  the  most  particular  satisfaction,  sir,  that  I 
make  known  to  you  this  determination  of  the  emperor. 
His  majesty  loves  the  Americans.  Their  prosperity  and 
their  commerce  are  within  the  scope  of  his  policy. 

^'  The  independence  of  America  is  one  of  the  principal 
titles  of  glory  to  France.  Since  that  epoch  the  emperor 
is  pleased  in  aggrandizing  the  United  States,  and,  under  all 
circumstances,  that  which  can  contribute  to  the  independence, 
to  the  prosperity,  and  the  liberty  of  the  Americans,  the  empe- 
ror will  consider  as  conformable  icith  the  interests  of  his 
empire.''^ 

On  the  2d  day  of  November,  1810,  the  President  issued 
his  proclamation,  giving  notice  that  the  French  decrees 
were  revoked.     After  the  usual  recital,  referring  to  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  ,165 

act  of  Congress,  authorizing  him  to  adopt  that  measure, 
the  proclamation  says — 

**  And  whereas  it  has  been  officially  made  known  to  this 
government,  that  the  edicts  of  France  violating  the  neu- 
tral commerce  of  the  United  States  have  been  so  revoked 
as  to  cease  to  have  effect  on  the  first  of  the  present  month : 
Now,  therefore,  I,  James  Madison,  President  of  the  United 
States,  do  hereby  proclaim  that  the  said  edicts  of  France 
have  been  so  revoked  as  that  they  ceased  on  the  said  first 
day  of  the  present  month  to  violate  the  neutral  commerce 
of  the  United  States ;  and  that,  from  the  date  of  these 
presents,  all  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  aforesaid  act 
shall  cease  and  be  discontinued  in  relation  to  France  and 
her  dependencies." 

Thus  it  appears,  that  after  this  long  traiil  of  negotiation 
and  effort,  the  French  government  had  succeeded,  in  co- 
operation with  ours,  in  bringing  the  United  States  to  a 
species  of  issue  with  Great  Britain.  This  was  taking  one 
more  important  step  towards  the  open  conflict  which  even- 
tually occurred  between  the  countries.  A  little  further  at- 
tention will  be  necessary  to  the  correspondence  of  General 
Armstrong,  relating  to  this  adjustment. 

It  has  been  seen,  that  upon  the  issuing  of  the  Rambou- 
illet  decree,  a  large  amount  of  American  property  within 
the  reach  of  French  authority  was  seized  and  confiscated, 
and  the  avails  were  placed  in  the  imperial  privy  purse.  On 
the  lOth  of  September,  1810,  General  Armstrong  address- 
ed a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  which  he  says,  that 
by  a  letter  from  the  duke  of  Cadore,  a  copy  of  which  was 
enclosed,  "  it  will  be  seen  that  the  decree  of  Rambouillet 
is  not  in  operation,  and  that  American  ships  entering  the 
ports  of  France  before  the  1st  of  November  next,  will  be 
judged  under  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  of  Milan.  In  a 
paragraph  in  the  same  letter,  under  the  date  of  September 
12th,  he  says — "  I  have  the  honour  to  enclose  copies  of 
two  other  letters  from  the  duke  of  Cadore,  one  of  which 


166  HISTORY    OF    THE 

is  an  answer  to  my  note  of  the  8th  instant.  To  the  ques- 
tion whether  we  had  any  thing  to  expect  in  reparation  for 
past  wrongs  f  they  reply,  that  their  act  being  of  reprisal, 
the  law  of  reprisal  must  govern  ;  in  other  words,  that 
if  you  confiscate  French  property  under  the  law  of  non-inter- 
course, they  will  confiscate  your  property  under  their  decree  of 
Ramhouillet,^^  The  words  underscored  is  the  verbal  ex- 
planation which  accompanied  the  letter, 

"  THE  DUKE  OF  CADORE  tO  GENERAL  ARMSTRONG. 

"  Paris,  September  7th,  1810. 

**  Sir, — You  have  done  me  the  honour  to  ask  of  me,  by 
your  letter  of  the  20th  of  August,  what  will  be  the  lot  of 
the  American  vessels  which  may  arrive  in  France  before 
the  1st  of  November. 

'*  His  majesty  has  always  wished  to  favour  the  com- 
merce of  the  United  States.  It  was  not  without  reluc- 
tance that  he  used  reprisal  towards  the  Americans  while 
he  saw  that  Congress  had  ordered  the  confiscation  of  all 
French  vessels  which  might  arrive  in  the  United  States. 

"  It  appears  that  Congress  might  have  spared  to  his 
majesty  and  his  subjects  this  mortification  (ce  desagrement) 
if  in  place  of  that  harsh  and  decisive  measure,  which  left 
to  France  no  choice,  they  had  used  some  palliative,  such 
as  that  of  not  receiving  French  vessels,  or  of  sending  them 
away,  after  a  delay  of  so  many  days. 

'*  As  soon  as  his  majesty  was  informed  of  this  hostile 
act,  he  felt  that  the  honour  of  France,  involved  in  this 
point,  could  not  be  cleansed  (ne  pouvait  etre  lave)  but  by 
a  declaration  of  war  (which)  could  not  take  place  but  by 
tedious  explanations. 

"  The  emperor  contented  himself  with  making  repri- 
sals ;  and  in  consequence,  he  applied  to  American  vessels 
which  came  to  France,  or  to  countries  occupied  by  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  167 

French  armies,  word  for  word,  the  regulations  of  the  act 
of  Congress.  '    . 

"Since  the  last  measures  by  which  that  hostile  act  is 
repealed,  his  majesty  hastens  to  cause  it  to  be  made  known 
to  you  that  he  anticipates  that  which  may  re-establish  har- 
mony with  the  United  States,  and  that  he  repeals  his  de- 
crees of  Berlin  and  Milan,  under  the  conditions  pointed  out 
in  my  letter  to  you,  of  the  5th  of  August. 

"  During  this  interval,  the  American  vessels  which 
shall  arrive  in  France  will  not  be  subjected  to  confisca- 
tion ;  because  the  act  of  Congress,  which  had  served  as  a 
motive  to  our  reprisals,  is  repealed  ;  but  these  vessels  will 
be  subjected  to  all  the  effects  of  the  Berhn  and  Milan  de- 
crees ;  that  is  to  say,  they  will  be  treated  amicably,  if  they 
can  be  considered  as  Americans,  and  hostilely,  if  they  have 
lost  their  national  character  (s'ils  se  sont  laisse  denatio- 
nalise) by  submitting  to  the  orders  in  council  of  the  British 
government." 

On  the  7th  of  September,  1810,  General  Armstrong 
wrote  a  letter  to  the  duke  of  Cadore,  from  which  the  fol- 
lowing passages  are  copied — 

*'Your  excellency  will  not  think  me  importunate  if  I 
should  employ  the  last  moments  of  my  stay  in  Paris,  in 
seeking  an  explicit  declaration  on  the  following  points : 

1.  Has  the  decree  of  his  majesty  of  the  23d  of  March 
last,  enjoining  acts  of  reprisal  against  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States  on  account  of  their  late  law  of  non-inter- 
course, been  recalled  f 

2.  What  will  be  the  operation  (on  the  vessels  of  the 
United  States)  of  his  majesty's  decree  of  July  last,  forbid- 
ding the  departure  of  neutral  ships  from  the  ports  of 
France,  unless  provided  with  imperiallicenses'^  Are  these 
licenses  merely  substitutes  for  clearances?  or  do  they  pre- 
scribe regulations  to  be  observed  by  the  holders  of  them 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  ? 

"  Do  they  confine  the  permitted  intercourse  to  two  ports 


168  '  HISTORY    OF   THE 

only  of  the  said  States,  and  do  they  enjoin  that  all  ship- 
ments be  made  on  French  account  exclusively  ? 

"  Is  it  his  majesty's  will,  that  the  seizures  made  in  the 
ports  of  Spain  and  other  places,  on  the  principle  of  repri- 
sal, shall  become  a  subject  of  present  or  future  negotiation 
between  the  two  governments  ?  or,  are  the  acts  already 
taken  by  his  majesty  to  be  regarded  as  conclusive  against 
remuneration  ? 

"  I  need  not  suggest  to  your  excellency  the  interest  that 
both  governments  have  in  the  answers  that  may  be  given 
to  these  questions,  and  how  nearly  connected  they  are 
with  the  good  understanding  which  ought  to  exist  between 
them.  After  the  great  step  lately  taken  by  his  majesty 
towards  an  accommodation  of  differences,  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  suppose  that  any  new  consideration  will  arise, 
which  shall  either  retard  or  prevent  the  adoption  of  mea- 
sures necessary  to  a  full  restoration  of  the  commercial 
intercourse  and  friendly  relation  of  the  two  powers." 

The  following  is  the  reply  to  the  foregoing  note — 

"  THE  DUKE  OF  CADORE  to  GENERAL  ARMSTRONG. 

"  Paris,  Sept.  12th,  1810. 

**  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  7th  of  September. 
That  which  I  wrote  to  you  the  same  day  answered  the 
first  of  the  questions  you  put  to  me.  I  will  add  to  what  I 
have  had  the  honour  to  write  to  you,  that  the  decree  of  the 
23d  of  March,  1810,  which  ordered  reprisals  in  conse- 
quence of  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  1st  of  March,  1809, 
was  repealed  as  soon  as  we  were  informed  of  the  repeal 
of  the  act  of  non-intercourse  passed  against  France. 

*'  On  your  second  question  I  hasten  to  declare  to  you, 
that  American  vessels  loaded  with  merchandise  the  growth 
of  the  American  provinces,  will  be  received  without  diffi- 
culty in  the  ports  of  France,  provided  they  have  not  suffered 
their  flag  to  lose  its  national  character,  by  submitting  to  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  160 

acts  of  the  British  council;  they  may  in  like  manner  depart 
from  the  ports  of  France.  The  ernperor  has  given  licenses 
to  American  vessels.  It  is  the  only  flag  which  has  obtained 
them.  In  this  his  majesty  has  intended  to  give  a  proof  of 
the  respect  he  loves  to  show  to  the  Americans.  If  he  is 
somewhat  dissatisfied  (pen  satisfaite)  that  they  have  not 
as  yet  been  able  to  succeed  in  causing  their  flag  to  be  re- 
spected, at  least  he  sees  with  pleasure  that  they  are  far 
from  acknowledging  the  tyrannical  principles  of  English 
legislation. 

"The  American  vessels  which  may  be  loaded  on  ac- 
count of  Frenchmen,  or  on  account  of  Americans,  will  be 
admitted  into  the  ports  of  France.  As  to  the  merchandise 
confiscated,  it  having  been  confiscated  as  a  measure  of  repri- 
sal, the  principles  of  reprisal  must  he  the  law  in  that  affair,''^ 

The  government  of  Great  Britain  considered  the  revo- 
cation of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  as  not  absolute, 
but  conditional,  and  therefore  declined  repealing  their 
orders  in  council.  On  the  23d  of  July,  1811,  Mr.  Monroe, 
Secretary  of  State,  addressed  a  long  letter  to  Mr.  Foster, 
the  British  minister,  on  the  general  controversy.  After  al- 
luding to  what  occurred  respecting  the  French  decrees,  he 
remarks,  "  Great  Britain  still  declines  to  revoke  her 
edicts,  on  the  pretension  that  France  has  not  revoked 
hers.  Under  that  impression  she  infers  that  the  United 
States  have  done  her  injustice  by  carrying  into  effect  the 
non-importation  against  her. 

*'  The  United  States  maintain  that  France  has  revoked 
her  edicts  so  far  as  they  violated  their  neutral  rights,  and 
were  contemplated  by  the  law  of  May  1st,  1810,  and  have 
on  that  ground  particularly  claimed,  and  do  expect  of 
Great  Britain  a  similar  revocation. 

"  The  revocation  announced  officially  by  the  French 
minister  of  foreign  affairs,  to  the  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  United  States  at  Paris,  on  the  5th  of  August,  1810, 
was  in   itself  sufficient  to  justify  the  claim  of  the  United 

22 


170  HISTORY    OF    THE 

States  to  a  coriespondent  measure  from  Great  Britain. 
She  had  declared  that  she  would  proceed  pari  passu  in 
the  repeal  with  France,  and  the  day  being  fixed  when  the 
repeal  of  the  French  decrees  should  take  effect,  it  was  rea- 
sonable to  conclude  that  Great  Britain  would  fix  the  same 
day  for  the  repeal  of  her  orders.  Had  this  been  done,  the 
proclamation  of  the  President  would  have  announced  the 
revocation  of  the  edicts  of  both  powers  at  the  same  time ; 
and  in  consequence  thereof,  the  non-importation  would 
have  gone  into  operation  against  neither.  Such  too  is 
the  natural  course  of  proceeding  in  transactions  between 
independent  states  ;  and  such  the  conduct  wliich  they  ge- 
nerally observe  towards  each  other.  In  all  compacts  be- 
tween nations,  it  is  the  duty  of  each  to  perform  what  it 
stipulates,  and  to  presume  on  the  good  faith  of  the  other 
for  a  like  performance.  The  United  States  having  made 
a  proposal  to  both  belligerents,  were  bound  to  accept  a 
conjpliance  from  either,  and  it  was  no  objection  to  the 
French  comj)liance,  that  it  was  in  a  form  to  take  effect  at 
a  future  day,  that  being  a  form  not  unusual  in  laws  and 
other  public  acts.  Even  when  nations  are  at  war  and 
make  peace,  this  obligation  of  mutual  confidence  exists, 
and  must  be  respected.  In  treaties  of  commerce,  by 
which  their  future  intercourse  is  to  be  governed,  the  obli- 
gation is  the  same.  If  distrust  and  jealousy  are  allowed  to 
prevail,  the  moral  tie  which  binds  nations  together,  in  all 
their  relations,  in  war  as  well  as  in  peace,  is  broken. 

"  Great  Britain  has  declined  proceeding  pari  passu  with 
France  in  the  revocation  of  their  respective  edicts.  She 
has  held  aloof,  and  claims  of  the  United  States  proof  not 
only  that  France  has  revoked  her  decrees,  but  that  she  con- 
tinues to  act  in  conformity  with  the  revocatiojn. 

"  You  urge  only  as  an  evidence  that  the  decrees  are  not 
repealed,  the  speech  of  the  emperor  of  France  to  the  de- 
puties from  the  free  cities  of  Hamburg,  Bremen,  and  Lu- 
bock ;  the  imperial  edict  dated  at  Fontainbleau,  on  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  171 

19th  of  October,  1810  ;  the  report  of  the  French  minister 
of  foreign  affairs  dated  in  December  last,  and  a  letter  of 
the  minister  of  justice  to  the  president  of  the  council  of 
prizes  of  the  25th  of  that  month. 

"  There  is  nothing  iti  the  first  of  these  papers  incompa- 
tible with  the  revocation  of  the  decrees,  in  respect  to  the 
United  States.  It  is  distinctly  declared  by  the  emperor  in 
his  speech  to  the  deputies  of  the  Hanse  Towns,  that  the 
blockade  of  the  British  islands  shall  cease  when  the  British 
blockades  cease ;  and  that  the  French  blockades  shall  cease 
in  favour  of  those  nations  in  whose  favour  Great  Britain  re- 
vokes hers,  or  who  support  their  rights  against  her  preten- 
sion, as  France  admits  the  United  States  will  do  by  en- 
forcing the  non-importation  act.  The  same  sentiment  is 
expressed  in  the  report  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs. 
The  decree  of  Fontainbleau  having  no  effect  on  the  high 
seas,  cannot  be  brought  into  this  discussion.  It  evidently 
has  no  connection  with  neutral  rights. 

"The  letter  from  the  minister  of  justice  to  the  president 
of  the  council  of  prizes,  is  of  a  different  character.  It  re- 
lates in  direct  terms  to  this  subject,  but  not  in  the  sense  in 
which  you  understand  it.  After  reciting  the  note  from 
the  duke  of  Cadore  of  the  5th  of  August  last,  to  the  Ame- 
rican minister  at  Paris,  which  announced  the  repeal  of  the 
French  decrees,  and  the  proclamation  of  the  President  in 
consequence  of  it,  it  states  that  all  causes  arising  under 
those  decrees  after  the  1st  of  November,  which  wore  then 
before  the  court,  or  might  afterwards  be  brought  before  it, 
should  not  be  judged  by  the  principles  of  the  decrees,  but 
be  suspended  until  the  2d  of  February,  when  the  United 
States  having  fulfilled  their  engagement,  the  captures  should 
be  declared  void,  and  the  vessels  and  their  cargoes  be 
delivered  up  to  their  owners.  This  paper  appears  to  afford 
an  unequivocal  evidence  of  the  revocation  of  the  decrees, 
so  far  as  relates  to  the  United  States,  By  instructing  the 
French  tribunal  to  make  no  decision  until  the  2d  of  Febru- 


172  HISTORY    OF   THE 

ary,  and  then  to  restore  the  property  to  the  owners  on  a 
particular  event  which  has  happened ;  all  cause  of  doubt 
on  that  point  seems  to  be  removed.  The  United  States 
may  justly  complain  of  delay  in  the  restitution  of  that  pro- 
perty, but  that  is  an  injury  which  affects  them  only.  Great 
Britain  has  no  right  to  complain  of  it.  She  was  interested 
only  in  the  revocation  of  the  decrees  by  which  neutral 
rights  would  be  secured  from  future  violation  ;  or  if  she 
had  been  interested  in  the  delay,  it  would  have  afforded 
no  pretext  for  more  than  a  delay  in  repealing  her  orders 
till  the  2d  February.  From  that  day,  at  farthest,  the 
French  decrees  would  cease.  At  the  same  day  ought  her 
orders  to  have  ceased." 

On  the  26th  of  July,  Mr.  Foster  replied  to  Mr.  Monroe. 
The  following  arc  extracts,  from  his  letter  : — 

"You  urge,  sir,  that  the  British  government  promised 
to  proceed  pari  passu  with  France  in  the  repeal  of  her 
edicts.  It  is  to  be  wished  you  could  point  out  to  us 
any  step  France  has  taken  in  the  repeal  of  hers.  Great 
Britain  has  repeatedly  declared  that  she  would  repeal 
when  the  French  did  so,  and  she  means  to  keep  to  that 
declaration. 

"I  have  stated  to  you  that  we  could  not  consider  the 
letter  of  August  5th,  declaring  the  repeal  of  the  French 
edicts,  provided  we  revoked  our  orders  in  council,  or  Ame- 
rica resented  our  not  doing  so,  as  a  step  of  that  nature ; 
and  the  French  government  knew  that  we  could  not ;  their 
object  was,  evidently,  while  their  system  was  adhered  to  in 
all  its  rigour,  to  endeavour  to  persuade  the  American  go- 
vernment that  they  had  relaxed  from  it,  and  to  induce  her 
to  proceed  in  enforcing  the  submission  of  Great  Britain  to 
the  inordinate  demands  of  France.  It  is  to  be  lamented 
that  they  have  but  too  well  succeeded ;  for  the  United 
States  government  appear  to  have  considered  the  French 
declaration  in  the  sense  in  which  France  wished  it  to  be 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  178 

taken,  as  an  absolute  repeal  of  her  decrees,  without  ad- 
verting to  the  conditional  terms  which  accompanied  it." 

"  To  the  ambiguous  declaration  in  M.  Champagny*s 
note,  is  opposed  the  unambiguous  and  personal  declara- 
tion of  Bonaparte  himself.  You  urge  that  there  is  nothing 
incompatible  with  the  revocation  of  the  decrees,  in  respect 
to  the  United  States,  in  his  expressions  to  the  deputies  of 
the  free  cities  of  Hamburg,  Bremen,  and  Lubeck ;  that  it 
is  distinctly  stated  in  that  speech  thut  the  blockade  of  the 
British  islands  shall  cease  when  the  British  blockades  cease, 
and  that  the  French  blockade  shall  cease  in  favour  of  those 
nations  in  whose  favour  Great  Britain  revokes  hers,  or  wfio 
support  their  rights  against  her  pretension. 

"  It  is  to  be  inferred  from  this  and  the  corresponding 
parts  of  the  declaration  alluded  to,  that  unless  Great 
Britain  sacrifices  her  principles  of  blockade,  which  are 
those  authorized  by  the  established  law  of  nations,  France 
will  still  maintain  her  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  which 
indeed  the  speech  in  question  declares  to  be  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  the  French  empire. 

"  I  do  not,  I  confess,  conceive  how  these  avowals  of  the 
ruler  of  France  can  be  said  to  be  compatible  with  the  repeal 
of  his  decrees  in  respect  to  the  United  States.  If  the 
United  States  are  prepared  to  insist  on  the  sacrifice  by 
Great  Britain  of  the  ancient  and  established  rules  of  mari- 
time war  practised  by  her,  then,  indeed,  they  may  avoid 
the  operation  of  the  French  decrees ;  but  otherwise,  ac- 
cording to  this  document,  it  is  very  clear  that  they  are  still 
subjected  to  them. 

'*  The  decree  of  Fontainbleau  is  confessedly  founded  on 
the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  dated  the  J  9th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1810,  and  proves  their  continued  existence.  The 
report  of  the  French  minister  of  December  8,  announcing 
the  perseverance  of  France  in  her  decrees,  is  still  further 
in  confirmation  of  them,  and  a  reper  rsal  of  the  letter  of  the 
minister  of  justice  of  the  25th  last  December,  confirms  me 


174  HISTORY    OF    THE 

in  the  inference  1  drew  from  it ;  for,  otherwise,  why  should 
that  minister  make  the  prospective  restoration  of  Ameri- 
can vessels  taken  after  the  1st  November  to  be  a  conse- 
quence of  the  non-importation,  and  not  of  the  French 
revocation?  If  the  French  government  had  been  sincere, 
they  would  have  ceased  infringing  on  the  neutral  rights 
of  America  after  the  1st  November :  that  they  violated 
them,  however,  after  that  period,  is  notorious. 

**  Your  government  seem  to  let  it  be  understood  that  an 
ambiguous  declaration  from  Great  Britain,  similar  to  that 
of  the  French  nrinister,  would  have  been  acceptable  to 
them.  But,  sir,  is  it  consistent  with  the  dignity  of  a  na- 
tion that  respects  itself  to  speak  in  ambiguous  language  ? 
The  subjects  and  citizens  of  either  country  would,  in  the 
end,  be  the  victims,  as  many  are  already,  in  all  probability, 
who,  from  a  misconstruction  of  the  meaning  of  the  French 
government,  have  been  led  into  the  most  imprudent  spe- 
culations. Such  conduct  would  not  be  to  proceed  pari 
passu  witli  France  in  revoking  our  edicts,  but  to  descend 
to  the  use  of  the  perfidious  and  juggling  contrivances  of 
her  cabinet,  by  which  she  fills  her  coffers  at  the  expense 
of  independent  nations.  A  similar  construction  of  pro- 
ceeding pari  passu  might  lead  to  such  decrees  as  those  of 
Rambouillet  or  of  Bayonne,  to  the  system  of  exclusion  or 
of  Hcenses  ;  all  measures  of  France  against  the  American 
commerce,  in  nothing  short  of  absolute  hostihty." 

"I  have  now  followed  you,  I  beheve,  sir,  through  the 
whole  range  of  your  argument,  and  on  reviewing  the 
course  of  it,  I  think  I  may  securely  say,  that  no  satisfac- 
tory proof  has  as  yet  been  brought  forward  of  the  repeal 
of  the  obnoxious  decrees  of  France,  but  on  the  contrary, 
that  it  appears  they  continue  in  full  force  ;  consequently 
that  no  grounds  exist  on  which  you  can  with  justice  de- 
mand of  Great  Britain  a  revocation  of  her  orders  in  coun- 
cil ;  that  we  have  a  right  to  complain  of  the  conduct  of  the 
American  government  in   enforcing  the  provisions  of  the 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION-  175 

act  of  May,  1810,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  British  trade,  and 
afterwards  in  obtaining  a  special  law  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, though  it  was  notorious  at  the  time  that  France  still 
continued  her  aggressions  upon  American  commerce,  and 
had  recently  promulgated  anew  her  decrees,  suffering  no 
trade  from  this  country  but  through  licenses  publickly  sold 
by  her  agents,  and  that  all  the  suppositions  you  have 
formed  of  innovations  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  or  of 
her  pretensions  to  trade  with  her  enemies,  are  wholly 
groundless.  I  have  also  stated  to  you  the  view  his  ma- 
jesty's government  has  taken  of  the  question  of  the  block- 
ade of  May,  1806,  and  it  now  only  remains  that  I  urge 
afresh  the  injustice  of  the  United  States'  government  per- 
severing in  their  union  with  the  Freiich  system,  for  the 
purpose  of  crushing  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain." 

A  still  more  extended  correspondence  ensued  relating 
to  this  subject,  in  which  it  was  contended  on  the  part  of 
the  American  government,  that  the  Frencli  decrees  were 
actually  repealed,  and  on  that  of  the  British  government, 
that  the  professed  act  of  repeal  by  the  French  emperor 
was  a  mere  deception,  and  that  the  decrees  were  still  in 
force  ;  and  this  was  urged  as  the  reason  why  the  British 
orders  in  council  were  not  formally  revoked.  The  cause 
which  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  difHculty  in  adjusting  the 
controversy  respecting  the  edicts  of  Great  Britain,  which 
it  was  contended  violated  our  neutral  rights,  was  the  de- 
mand on  our  part  of  the  revocation  of  the  blockading  order 
of  May,  1806;  the  circumstances  attending  which  have 
already  been  adverted  to.  In  a  letter  from  the  Marquis 
of  Wellesley  to  Mr.  Pinkney,  dated  December  29th,  1810, 
his  lordship  says — ''  By  your  explanation  it  appears,  that 
the  American  government  understands  the  letter  of  the 
French  minister  as  anncnjncing  an  absolute  repeal,  on  the 
1st  of  November,  1810,  of  the  French  decrees  of  Berlin 
and  Milan  ;  which  repeal,  however,  is  not  to  continue  in 
force  unless  the  British  government,  within  a  reasonable 


176  HISTORY    OF    THE 

time  after  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  shall  fulfil  the  two 
conditions  stated  distinctly  in  the  letter   of  the    French 
minister.     Under  this  explanation,  if  nothing  more   had 
been  required  from  Great  Britain  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing the  continuance  of  the  repeal  of  the  French  decrees, 
than  the  repeal  of  our  orders  in  council,  1  should  not  have 
hesitated  to  declare  the  perfect  readiness  of  this  govern- 
ment to  fulfil  that  condition.     On  these  terms  the  British 
government  has  always  been  sincerely  disposed  to  repeal 
the  orders  in  council.     It  appears,  however,  not  only  by 
the  letter  of  the  French  minister,  but  by  your  explanation, 
that  the  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council  will  not  satisfy 
either  the  French  or  the  American  government.     The 
British  government  is  further  required,  by  the  letter  of  the 
French  minister,  to  renounce  those  principles  of  blockade 
which  the  French  government  alleges  to  be  new.     A  re- 
ference to  the  terms  of  the  Berlin  decree  will  serve  to 
explain  the  extent  of  this  requisition.     The  Berlin  decree 
states,  that  Great  Britain  "  extends  the  right  of  blockade 
to  commercial  unfortified  towns,  and  to  ports,  harbours, 
and  mouths  of  rivers,  which  according  to  the  principles  and 
practice  of  all  civilized  nations,  is  only  applicable  to  forti- 
fied places."     On  the  part  of  the  American  government,  I 
understand  you  to  require  that  Great  Britain  should  revoke 
her  order  of  blockade  of  May,  1806.    Combining  your  re- 
quisition with  that  of  the  French  minister,  I  must  conclude 
that  America  demands  the  revocation   of  that   order   of 
blockade  as  a  practical  instance  of  our  renunciation  of  those 
principles  of  blockade  which  are  condemned  by  the  French 
government.     Those  principles  of  blockade  Great  Britain 
has  asserted  to  be  ancient  and  established  by  the  laws  of 
maritime  war,  acknowledged  by  all  civilized  nations,  and 
on  which  depend  the  most  valuable  rights  and  interests  of 
this  nation.     If  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  are  to  be 
considered  as  still  in  force,  unless  Great  Britain  shall  re- 
nounce these    established    foundations   of   her    maritime 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION*  177 

rights  and  interests,  the  period  of  time  is  not  yet  arrived, 
when  the  repeal  of  her  orders  in  council  can  be  claimed 
from  her,  either  with  reference  to  the  promise  of  this 
government,  or  to  the  safety  and  honour  of  the  nation." 

Mr.  Pinkney  replied  to  Lord  Wellesley  on  the  14th  of 
July,  1811.  In  alluding  to  that  part  of  his  lordship's  let- 
ter which  has  been  above  cited,  he  says — "If  I  compre- 
hend the  other  parts  of  your  lordship's  letter,  they  declare 
in  effect,  that  the  British  government  will  repeal  nothing 
but  the  orders  in  council,  and  that  it  cannot  at  present  re- 
peal even  them,  because,  in  the  first  place,  the  French  go- 
vernment has  required,  in  the  letter  of  the  duke  of  Cadore 
to  General  Armstrong,  of  the  5th  cf  August,  not  only  that 
Great  Britain  shall  revoke  those  orders,  but  that  she  shall 
renounce  certain  principles  of  blockade  (supposed  to  be 
explained  in  the  preamble  to  the  Berlin  decree)  which 
France  alleges  to  be  new ;  and  in  the  second  place,  be- 
cause the  American  government  has  (as  you  conclude)  de- 
manded the  revocation  of  the  British  order  of  blockade 
of  May,  1806,  as  a  practical  instance  of  that  same  renuncia- 
Hon,  or,  in  other  words,  has  made  itself  a  party,  not  openly 
indeed,  but  indirectly  and  covertly,  to  the  entire  requisition 
of  France,  as  you  understand  that  requisition. 

*'  It  is  certainly  true  that  the  American  government 
has  required,  as  indispensable  in  the  view  of  its  acts  of 
intercourse  and  non-intercourse,  the  annulment  of  the 
British  blockade  of  May,  1806 ;  and  further,  that  it  has 
through  me  declared  its  confident  expectation  that  other 
blockades  of  a  similar  character  (including  that  of  the 
island  of  Zealand)  will  be  discontinued.  But  by  what  pro- 
cess of  reasoning  your  lordship  has  arrived  at  the  conclu- 
sion, that  the  government  of  the  United  States  intended 
by  this  requisition  to  become  the  champion  of  the  edict  of 
Berlin,  to  fashion  its  principles  by  those  of  France  while  it 
affected  to  adhere  to  its  own,  and  to  act  upon  some  part- 
nership in  doctrines,  which  it  would  fain  induce  you  to  ac- 

23 


178  HISTORY    OF   THE 

knowledge,  but  could  not  prevail  upon  itself  to  avow,  I  am 
not  able  to  conjecture.  The  frank  and  honourable  charac- 
ter of  the  American  government  justifies  me  in  saying  that, 
if  it  had  meant  to  demand  of  Great  Britain  an  abjuration 
of  all  such  principles  as  the  French  government  may  think 
fit  to  disapprove,  it  would  not  have  put  your  lordship  to  the 
trouble  of  discovering  that  meaning  by  the  aid  of  combi- 
nations and  inferences  discountenanced  by  the  language  of 
its  minister,  but  would  have  told  you  so  in  explicit  terms. 
What  I  have  to  request  of  your  lordship,  therefore,  is  that 
you  will  take  our  views  and  principles  from  our  own  mouths, 
and  that  neither  the  Berlin  decree,  nor  any  other  act  of 
any  foreign  state,  may  be  made  to  speak  for  us  what  we 
have  not  spoken  for  ourselves." 

In  a  letter  from  Mr.  Pinkney  to  Mr.  Smith,  Secretary 
of  State,  of  the  17th  of  January,  1811,  in  alluding  to  the 
letter  from  which  the  above  passages  are  cited,  he  says — 
*'  My  answer  to  lord  Wellesley's  letter  was  written  under 
the  pressure  of  indisposition,  and  the  influence  of  more 
indignation  than  could  well  be  suppressed."  As  the  agent 
of  his  government,  it  was  doubtless  the  duty  of  Mr.  Pink- 
ney to  make  the  best  of  the  case  he  had  on  hand.  But  it 
will  be  made  apparent,  before  this  examination  is  finished^ 
that  the  British  minister  was  not  entirely  destitute  of  rea- 
son for  his  suggestion  respecting  that  which  was  called  "a 
partnership  in  doctrines."  It  is  sufficient  for  the  present 
to  remark,  that  the  circumstance  of  the  American  govern- 
ment having  introduced,  as  a  preliminary  to  their  negotia- 
tions respecting  the  appeal  of  the  British  orders  in  council, 
the  British  blockading  order  of  May,  1806,  prevented  the 
adjustment  of  that  question,  and  was  the  means  of  keep- 
ing alive  the  spirit  of  hostility,  until  it  terminated  in  the 
war  of  1812. 

In  a  letter  from  the  Marquis  of  Wellesley  to  Mr.  Pink- 
ney, dated  February  11th,  1811,  he  again  adverts  to  this 
subject,  and  says — ''  Great  Britain  has  always  insisted  upon 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  17i 

ker  ri^ht  of  self-defence  against  the  system  of  commercial 
warfare  pursued  by  France,  and  the  British  orders  of  couti« 
oil  were  founded  upon  a  just  principle  of  retaliation  against 
the  French  decrees.  The  incidental  operation  of  the  or- 
ders of  council  upon  the  commerce  of  the  United  States, 
(although  deeply  to  be  lamented)  must  be  ascribed  exclu- 
sively to  the  violence  and  injustice  of  the  enemy,  which 
compelled  this  country  to  resort  to  adequate  means  of  de- 
fence. It  cannot  now  be  admitted  that  the  foundation  of 
the  original  question  should  be  changed,  and  that  the  mea- 
sure of  retaliation  adopted  against  France  should  now  be 
relinquished,  at  the  desire  of  the  United  States,  without 
any  reference  to  the  actual  conduct  of  the  enemy. 

*'The  intention  has  been  repeatedly  declared  of  repeal- 
ing the  orders  of  council,  whenever  France  shall  actually 
have  revoked  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  and  shall 
have  restored  the  trade  of  neutral  nations  to  the  condition 
in  which  it  stood  previously  to  the  promulgation  of  those 
decrees.  Even  admitting  that  France  has  suspended  the 
operation  of  those  decrees,  or  has  repealed  them,  with  re- 
ference to  the  United  States,  it  is  evident  that  she  has  not 
relinquished  the  conditions  expressly  declared  in  the  letter 
of  the  French  minister  under  date  of  the  5th  of  August, 
1810.  France  therefore  requires  that  Great  Britain  shall 
not  only  repeal  the  orders  of  council,  but  renounce  those 
principles  of  blockade  which  are  alleged  in  the  same  letter 
to  be  new;  an  allegation  which  must  be  understood  to  re- 
fer to  the  introductory  part  of  the  Berlin  decree.  If  Great 
Britain  shall  not  submit  to  these  terms,  it  is  plainly  inti- 
mated in  the  same  letter  that  France  requires  America  to 
enforce  them. 

*'  To  these  conditions,  his  royal  highness,  on  behalf  of 
his  majesty,  cannot  accede.  No  principles  of  blockade 
have  been  promulgated  or  acted  upon  by  Great  Britain 
previously  to  the  Berlin  decree,  which  are  not  strictly  con- 
formable to  the  rights  of  civilized  war,  and  to  the  approved 


180  HISTORY   OF   THE 

usages  and  law  of  nations.  The  blockades  established  by 
the  orders  of  council  rest  on  separate  grounds,  and  are 
justified  by  the  principles  of  necessary  retaliation,  in  which 
they  originated." 

That  the  French  decrees  were  not  in  truth  repealed  on 
the  1st  of  November,  1810,  was  further  inferred  by  the 
British  government,  from  the  ftict  that  Bonaparte  had  es- 
tablished ihe  practice  of  requiring  the  American  vessels 
to  take  out  licenses,  before  they  could  be  admitted  into 
French  ports,  and  that  they  should  take  in  for  their  return 
cargoes  two-thirds  of  the  quantity  in  French  silks  and 
wines.  On  the  I6th  of  January,  1811,  Mr.  Russell,  charge 
d'affaires  of  the  United  States  at  Paris,  wrote  to  Mr.  Smith, 
Secretary  of  State,  as  follows — 

"Your  letter  of  the  Sth  of  November,  relative  to  the 
powers  given  by  this  government  to  its  consuls  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  under  its  decree  concerning  licenses,  was  re- 
ceived by  me  on  the  11th  instant,  and  the  next  day  I  com- 
municated its  contents  to  the  duke  of  Cadore  in  a  note,  a 
copy  of  which  you  will  find  enclosed." 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  note  above  alluded  to — 

MR.    RUSSELL   to   THE   DUKE   OF    CADORE. 

Paris  J  January  12,  1811. 

"  Sir, — The  public  journals  and  letters  from  General 
Armstrong  have  announced  to  the  American  government 
an  imperial  decree,  by  which  permission  is  to  be  granted 
to  a  stated  number  of  American  vessels,  to  import  into 
France  from  certain  ports  in  the  United  States,  the  arti- 
cles therein  specified,  and  to  export  in  return  such  pro- 
ductions of  the  French  empire  as  are  also  enumerated  in 
said  decree.  This  trade,  it  would  appear,  is  to  be  carried 
on  under  the  authority  of  imperial  licenses,  and  can  only 
be  perfected  by  the  act  of  the  French  consul  residing  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  at  the  specified  ports. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  181 

"  The  United  States  have  no  pretension  of  right  to  ob- 
ject to  the  operation  of  commercial  regulations,  strictly 
municipal,  authorised  by  the  French  government  to  take 
effect  within  the  limits  of  its  own  dominions  ;  but  I  am  in- 
structed to  state  to  you  the  inadmissibility,  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  of  such  a  consular  superintendence  as 
that  which  is  contemplated  by  this  decree  respecting  a 
trade  to  be  carried  on  under  licenses. 

*'  France  cannot  claim  for  her  consuls,  either  by  treaty 
or  custom,  such  a  superintendence.  They  can  be  per- 
mitted to  enjoy  such  legitimate  functions  only  as  are  sanc- 
tioned by  public  law,  or  by  the  usage  of  nations  grow- 
ing out  of  the  courtesy  of  independent  states. 

"  Besides,  the  decree  in  question  professes  to  invest  cer- 
tain consuls  with  a  power  which  cannot  be  regularly 
exercised  in  the  United  States  without  the  tacit  permis- 
sion of  the  American  government ;  a  permission  that  can- 
not be  presumed,  not  only  because  it  is  contrary  to  usage, 
but  because  consuls  thus  acting  would  be  exercising  func- 
tions in  the  United  States  in  virtue  of  French  authority 
only,  which  the  American  government  itself  is  not  compe- 
tent to  authorise  in  any  agents  whatever. 

"  If  the  construction  given  by  the  government  of  the 
United  States  to  this  decree  be  correct,  the  government  of 
France  should  not  for  a  moment  mislead  itself  by  a  belief, 
that  its  commercial  agents  will  be  permitted  to  exercise  the 
extraordinary  power  thus  intended  to  be  given  to  them." 

That  the  American  government  were  much  annoyed  by 
this  attempt  of  his  imperial  majesty  of  France  to  regulate 
and  controul  our  trade  with  that  country,  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  make  it  answer  his  own  purposes,  cannot  be  doubted. 
That  they  complain  with  great  moderation  and  fear,  is  not 
a  matter  of  surprise  to  any  person  who  is  acquainted  with 
the  occurrences  of  that  period. 

The  duke  of  Cadore,  in  reply  to  the  foregoing  letter 
from  Mr.  Russell,  on  the  18th  of  January,  1831,  said — 


182  HISTORY    OF   THE 

"  I  have  read  with  much  attention  your  note  of  the  12th 
of  January,  relative  to  the  licenses  intended  to  favour  ihe 
commerce  of  the  Americans  in  Francg.  This  system  had 
been  conceived  before  the  revocation  of  the  decrees  of 
Berlin  and  Milan  had  been  resolved  upon.  Now  circum- 
stances are  changed  by  the  resolution  taken  by  the  United 
States,  to  cause  their  flag  and  their  independence  to  be  re- 
spected, that  which  has  been  done  before  this  last  epoch, 
can  no  longer  serve  as  a  rule  under  actual  circumstances." 

Ten  months  after  this,  however,  viz.  on  the  21st  of  No- 
vember, 1811,  in  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to 
Mr.  Barlow,  then  minister  in  France,  the  following  lan- 
guage is  used — 

*'  The  trade  by  licenses  must  be  abrogated.  I  cannot 
too  strongly  express  the  surprise  of  the  President,  after 
the  repeated  remonstrances  of  this  government,  and  more 
especially  after  the  letter  of  the  duke  of  Cadore  of  the 

*«. — , last,  informing  him  that  that  system 

would  fall  with  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  that  it  still 
should  be  adhered  to.  The  exequaturs  of  the  consuls  who 
have  granted  such  licenses,  w^ould  long  since  have  been 
revoked,  if  orders  to  them  to  discontinue  the  practice  had 
not  daily  been  expected,  or  in  case  they  were  not  received, 
the  more  effectual  interposition  of  Congress  to  suppress  it. 
It  will  certainly  be  prohibited  by  law,  under  severe  penal- 
ties, in  compliance  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Presi- 
dent, if  your  despatches  by  the  Constitution  do  not  prove 
that  your  demand  on  this  subject  has  been  duly  attended  to.'* 

The  recommendation  of  the  President  here  alluded  to 
by  the  Secretary  of  State,  it  is  presumed  is  in  the  following 
passage  of  the  executive  message  at  the  opening  of  Con- 
gress, on  the  5th  of  November  ; — that  is  about  a  fortnight 
before  the  date  of  the  foregoing  letter — 

*'  The  justice  and  fairness  which  have  been  evinced  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  towards  France,  both  before 
and  since  the  revocation  of  her  decrees,  authorised  an  ex- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  183 

pectatioii  that  her  government  vrould  have  followed  up 
that  measure,  by  all  such  others  as  were  due  to  our  rea- 
sonable claims,  as  well  as  dictated  by  its  amicable  profes- 
sions. No  proof,  however,  is  yet  given,  of  an  intention  to 
repair  the  other  wrongs  done  to  the  United  States;  and  par- 
ticularly to  restore  the  great  amount  of  American  property 
seized  and  condemned  under  edicts,  which  though  not 
affecting  our  neutral  relations,  and  therefore  not  entering 
into  questions  between  the  United  States  and  other  belli- 
gerents, were  nevertheless  founded  in  such  unjust  prin- 
ciples, that  the  reparation  ought  to  have  been  prompt  and 
ample. 

"  In  addition  to  this,  and  other  demands  of  strict  right 
on  that  nation,  the  United  States  have  much  reason  to  be 
dissatisfied  with  the  rigorous  and  unexpected  restrictions  to. 
which  their  trade  with  the  French  dominions  has  been  sub- 
jected ;  and  which,  if  not  discontinued,  will  require  at  least 
corresponding  restrictions  on  importations  from  France  into 
the  United  Staiesy 

There  is  nothing  in  this  message  like  a  call  upon  Con- 
gress to  interpose  and  suppress  the  license  trade  under 
severe  penalties.  That  trade  is  doubtless  alluded  to, 
though  not  by  name,  in  the  paragraph  last  quoted ;  but  it 
speaks  oi^^  rigorous  and  unexpected  restrictions,  which,  if 
not  discontinued,  will  require  at  least  corresponding  restric' 
tions^^  on  our  part.  In  other  words,  instead  of  revoking 
consular  exequaturs,  which  was  so  boldly  threatened 
nearly  a  year  before,  an  attempt  was  made  to  frighten 
Bonaparte  by  the  hint  of  establishing  a  license  trade  with 
France ! 

It  has  been  the  object  of  this  work  to  show,  by  quota- 
tations  from  the  public  documents  of  the  government,  that 
whilst  the  administration  were  endeavoring  by  their  lan- 
guage, as  well  as  by  their  acts,  to  irritate  the  British  go- 
vernment, they  were  manifesting  towards  France  either  a 
strong  and  unreasonable  biass,  or  a  servile  and  unmanly 


184  HISTORY    OF   THE 

fear.  Some  additional  evidence  in  support  of  these  posi- 
tions may  be  derived  from  another,  but  an  undoubtedly 
correct  and  credible  source. 

In  the  year  1811,  Mr.  Robert  Smith,  who  had  held  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  State  for  a  number  of  years  under 
Mr.  Madison,  in  consequence  of  some  disagreement  or 
misunderstanding  between  these  two  personages,  left  that 
office,  and  retired  to  private  life.  Soon  after  the  occur- 
rence of  that  event,  Mr.  Smith  published  an  address  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  containing  the  reasons 
for  his  resignation.  Among  other  statements  in  his  pub- 
lication are  the  following — 

"The  non-intercourse  law  of  the  last  session  was  also 
the  device  of  Mr.  Madison.  It  too  was  introduced  by  pre- 
sidential machinery. 

"  Should  this  statute  be  viewed,  as  it  ovght  to  he,  in  con- 
nexion with  and  as  emanating  from  the  law  of  May,  1810, 
then  will  we  have  to  look  for  the  '-'-facV  required  by  that 
law,  namely,  the  actual  revocation  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees. 

"If  this  revocation  did  in  fact  take  place,  as  declared 
by  the  proclamation,  then  the  act  of  May,  communicated 
as  it  had  been  by  the  executive  to  the  two  belligerent 
powers,  did  become  ipso  fado  a  compact  between  the  Uni- 
ted States  and  France,  and  in  that  case  neither  party  had  a 
right  to  disregard,  or  by  law  to  change,  its  stipulated  terms 
and  conditions,  as  this  government  confessedly  did  by  the 
non-intercourse  act  of  the  last  session." 

"If,  however,  the  emperor  of  the  French  did  not  in  fact 
revoke,  as  declared  by  the  proclamation,  the  Berlin  and 
Milan  decrees,  the  act  of  May  did  not  become  a  compact 
between  the  United  States  and  France,  and  in  that  case 
his  imperial  majesty  had  no  claim  against  this  government, 
founded  upon  that  statute,  to  enforce  the  non-intercourse 
against  the  other  bellioferent. 

"  What,  then,  was  the  evidence  which  had  induced  Con- 


HARTFORD    CONVEWTION.  186 

gress  to  consider  these  decrees  repealed,  and  which  had 
accordingly  induced  them  to  pass  the  non-intercourse  law? 
To  the  President,  in  this  as  in  every  other  case  touching 
oar  foreign  relations,  the  legislature  must  necessarily  have 
looked  for  information  and  recommendation.  From  him 
they  had  in  due  form  received  what,  they  imagined,  they 
were  officially  bound  to  consider  as  satisfactory  evidence 
of  the  repeal  of  these  decrees,  namely,  his  proclamation, 
and  his  message  containing  a  recommendation  to  enforce' 
the  act  of  May,  1810.  In  respect  then  to  this  evidence,  and 
in  pursuance  of  this  recommendation,  did  Congress  pass  the 
act  called  the  non-intercourse  law  of  the  last  session. 

"  This  non-intercourse  law,  let  it  be  distinctly  kept  in 
mind,  was  passed  after  the  arrival  at  Washington  of  the 
new  French  minister,  viz.  on  the  second  day  of  March, 
1811." 

*'  Notwithstanding  the  precise  protestation,  solemnly 
communicated  to  the  French  government,  and  openly  pro- 
mulgated to  the  whole  world,  in  virtue  of  the  letters  from 
the  State  Department  of  June  and  July,  1810,  that  "a  sa- 
tisfactory provision  for  restoring  the  property,  lately  sur- 
prised and  seized  by  the  order  or  at  the  instance  of  the 
French  government,  must  be  combined  with  a  repeal  of  the 
French  edicts,  vjith  a  view  to  a  non-intercourse  with  Great 
Britain,  yet  it  is  a  fact,  that  before  the  passing  of  the  non- 
intercourse  law  of  the  last  session,  viz.  on  the  20th  of  Fe- 
bruary, 1811,  the  French  government  did  officially  and  for- 
mally, through  their  minister,  Mr.  Serrurier,  communicate 
to  this  government  their  fixed  determination  not  to  restore 
the  property  that  had  been  so  seized.  And  moreover, 
from  the  information  which  had  been  received  by  Mr. 
Madison,  prior  to  the  date  of  the  non-intercourse  law,  it 
was  at  the  time  of  passing  it,  evident  to  my  mind,  that  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  not  been  revoked,  as  had  been 
declared  hy  the  proclamation,'' 

"  The  following  draught  of  a  letter  to  General  Arm- 

24 


186  HISTORY  OT  THE 

Strong  was  accordingly  prepared  by  me  immediately  after 
the  letter  of  the  duke  of  Cadore,  to  which  it  refers,  had 
been  received.  It  was  in  the  usual  form  laid  before  the 
President  for  his  approbation.  He,  however,  objected  to  the 
sending  of  it.  And  as  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this 
very  letter  constituted  part  of  the  ground  of  the  hostility  of 
Mr.  Madison  to  me,  it  is  but  proper  to  give  it  publicity. 

**  Coj)i/  of  the  draught  of  the  later  proposed  to  he  sent  to 
Gtneral  Armstrong. 

^^  Department  <f  State,  June  — ,  1810, 

"Gen.  Armstrong, — Your  letters  of  the  —  with  their 
respective  enclosures  were  received  on  the  21st  day  of  May, 

"In  the  note  of  the  duke  of  Cadore  nothing  can  be  per- 
ceived to  justify  the  seizure  of  the  American  property  in 
the  ports  of  France  and  in  those  of  her  allies.  The  facts  as 
well  as  the  arguments,  which  it  has  assumed,  are  confuted 
by  events  known  to  the  world,  and  particularly  by  that  mo- 
deration of  temper  which  has  invariably  distinguished  the 
conduct  of  this  government  towards  the  belligerent  nations. 

"After  a  forbearance  equalled  only  by  our  steady  ob- 
servance of  the  laws  of  neutrality  and  of  the  immutable 
principles  of  justice,  it  is  with  no  little  surprise  that  the 
President  discerns  in  the  French  government  a  disposition 
to  represent  the  United  States  as  the  original  aggressor. 
An  act  of  violence  which  under  existing  circumstances  is 
scarcely  less  than  an  act  of  war,  necessarily  required  an 
explanation,  which  would  satisfy  not  only  the  United  States^ 
but  the  world.  But  the  note  of  the  duke  of  Cadore,  in- 
stead of  a  justification,  has  not  furnished  even  a  plausible 
palliation  or  a  reasonable  apology  for  the  seizure  of  the 
American  property. 

"  There  has  never  been  a  period  of  time  when  the 
United  States  have  ceased  to  protest  against  the  British 
orders  in  council.  With  regard  to  the  resistance  which 
the  United  States  may  have  deemed  it  proper  to  oppose 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  187 

to  such  unlawful  restrictions,  it  obviously  belonged  to  the 
American  government  alone  to  prescribe  the  mode.  If  a 
system  of  exclusion  of  the  vessels  and  merchandise  of  the 
belligerent  powers  from  our  ports  has  been  preferred  to 
war,  if  municipal  prohibition  has  been  resorted  to  instead 
of  invasive  retaliation,  with  what  propriety  can  the  empe- 
rojr  of  the  French  pretend  to  see  in  that  method  of  pro- 
ceeding any  thing  else  than  a  lawful  exercise  of  sovereign 
power  f  To  construe  the  exercise  of  this  power  into  a 
cause  of  warlike  reprisal  is  a  species  of  dictation,  which, 
could  it  be  admitted,  would  have  a  tendency  to  subvert 
the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States. 

"  France  has  converted  our  law  of  exclusion  into  a  pretext 
for  the  seizure  of  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  This  statute  was  also  in  force  against  the  vessels  of 
Great  Britain.  If  its  operation  had  been  considered  by  the 
French  government  as  of  sufficient  efficacy  to  justify  this 
pretended  reprisal,  that  very  operation,  as  it  would  have 
been  more  severely  felt  by  Great  Britain,  ought  also  to 
have  been  considered  as  constituting  a  resistance  to  her 
orders,  the  non-existence  of  which  resistance  has  been 
stated  by  the  duke  of  Cadore  as  the  pretext  for  the  act  of 
violence  exercised  on  the  American  property.  The  United 
States  having  resisted  the  British  orders,  the  real  ground 
of  complaint  would  seem  to  be,  not  so  much  that  the  Ame- 
rican government  has  not  resisted  a  tax  on  their  naviga- 
tion, as  that  it  has  likewise  resisted  the  French  decrees, 
which  had  assumed  a  prescriptive  power  over  the  policy 
of  the  United  States,  as  reprehensible  as  the  attempt  of  the 
British  government  to  levy  contributions  on  our  trade  was 
obnoxious.  Placed  in  a  situation  where  a  tax  was  pro- 
claimed on  the  one  hand,  and  a  rule  of  action  prescribed 
on  the  other,  the  United  States  owed  it  to  their  own  honour 
to  resist  with  corresponding  measures  the  cupidity  of  the 
one  and  the  presumption  of  the  other.  When  the  Ameri- 
can government  sees  in  the  provisions  of  the  British  orders 


188  HISTORY   OF   THE 

an  assumption  of  maritime  power  in  contravention  of  the 
law  of  nations,  how  can  it  fail  also  to  perceive  in  the 
French  decrees  the  adoption  of  a  principle  equally  deroga- 
tory and  injurious  to  the  neutral  character  of  the  United 
States? 

"  The  pretension  of  subjecting  American  navigation  to 
a  tax,  as  advanced  by  the  British  order  of  November, 
1807,  was  in  reality  withdrawn  by  the  order  of  the  26th  of 
April,  1809.  Yet  ten  months  subsequent  to  the  recall  of 
that  pretension,  its  alleged  existence  is  made  the  basis  of 
reproach  against  the  American  government  by  the  empe- 
ror of  the  French.  It  would  be  fruitless  to  comment  upon 
the  disposition  to  insist  upon  the  prevailing  influence  of  a 
fact  which  no  longer  exists ;  which,  when  it  did  exist,  was 
uniformly  combated  ;  and  the  final  extinction  of  which 
was  the  manifest  consequence  of  the  measures  of  this 
government. 

"  If  the  American  government  had  seized  French  ves- 
sels, as  erroneously  asserted  in  the  note  of  the  duke  of 
Cadore,  the  occurrence  could  only  have  been  attributed  to 
the  temerity  of  their  owners  or  commanders,  who,  after  a 
previous  notification,  from  the  1st  of  March  to  the  20th  of 
May,  of  the  act  of  exclusion,  would  have  strangely  presumed 
upon  impunity  in  the  violation  of  a  prohibitory  municipal  law 
of  the  United  States.  Had  France  interdicted  to  our  ves- 
sels all  the  ports  within  the  sphere  of  her  influence,  and 
had  she  given  a  warning  of  equal  duration  with  that  given 
by  our  law,  there  would  have  been  no  cause  of  complaint 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  The  French  government 
would  not  then  have  had  the  opportunity  of  exercising  its 
power  in  a  manner  as  contrary  to  the  forms  as  to  the  spirit 
of  justice,  over  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States. 

*'  It  was  at  all  times  in  the  power  of  France  to  suspend, 
with  regard  to  herself,  our  acts  of  exclusion,  of  which  she 
complains,  by  simply  annulling  or  modifying  her  decrees* 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  189 

Propositions  to  this  effect  have  been  made  to  her  govern- 
ment through  you.  They  were  not  accepted.  On  the 
contrary,  a  policy  was  preferred  which  was  calculated  to 
produce  any  other  result  than  that  of  a  good  understand- 
ing between  the  two  countries.  By  the  act  of  Congress 
of  the  last  session  an  opportunity  is  again  afforded  to  his 
imperial  majesty  to  establish  the  most  amicable  relations 
between  the  United  States  and  France.  Let  him  with- 
draw or  modify  his  decrees  ;  let  him  restore  the  property 
of  our  citizens  so  unjustly  seized,  and  a  law  of  the  United 
States  exists  which  authorizes  the  President  to  promote 
the  best  possible  understanding  with  France,  and  to  im- 
pose a  system  of  exclusion  against  the  ships  and  merchan- 
dise of  Great  Britain  in  the  event  of  her  failing  to  conform 
to  the  same  just  terms  of  conciliation.  In  fine,  as  the 
emperor  will  now  be  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  no 
French  vessels  have  been  unlawfully  seized  in  the  ports  of 
the  United  States,  as  the  law  of  exclusion  against  the 
commerce  of  France  is  no  more  in  operation,  there  can  be 
no  longer  a  solitary  reasonable  pretext  for  procrastinating 
the  delivery  of  the  American  property,  detained  by  the 
French  government,  into  the  possession  of  the  respective 
owners. 

*'  These  observations  you  will  not  fail  to  present  to  the 
view  of  the  French  government,  in  order  that  the  emperor 
may  learn  that  the  United  States  insist  upon  nothing  but 
their  acknowledged  rights,  and  that  they  still  entertain  a 
desire  to  adjust  all  differences  with  the  government  of 
France  upon  a  basis  equally  beneficial  and  honourable  to 
both  nations. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c. 
"R.  Smith." 

It  seems,  from  a  passage  above  quoted,  that  Mr.  Smith, 
who  as  Secretary  of  State  had  full  opportunity  to  become 
acquainted  with  all  the  correspondence,  and  every  fact  in 


190  HISTORY    OF   THE 

possession  of  the  government,  relative  to  our  relations  and 
intercourse,  political  and  commercial,  with  France,  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  allegation  in  the  Presi- 
dent's proclamation,  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had 
been  revoked,  was  not  true.  He  says,  '*From  the  infor- 
mation that  had  been  received  hy  Mr,  Madison,  prior  to  the 
date  of  the  non-intercourse  law,  it  was,  at  the  time  of 
passing  it,  evident  to  my  mind,  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees  had  not  been  revoked,  as  had  been  declared  by  the 
proclamation."  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  the 
President  should  have  been  convinced  that  those  decrees 
had  been  revoked,  by  evidence  of  so  s^light  a  character  as 
to  produce  a  directly  opposite  effect  upon  the  Secretary's 
mind,  viz.  that  such  a  revocation  had  not  taken  place. 

Mr.  Smith  goes  on  to  say — 

**  Previously  to  the  meeting  of  Congress  last  autumn,  I 
expressed  to  Mr.  Madison  my  apprehension  that  the  empe- 
ror of  France  would  not  bona  fide  fulfil  the  just  expecta- 
tions of  the  United  States;  that  our  commerce  would  be 
exposed  in  his  ports  to  vexatious  embarrassments,  and  that 
tobacco  and  cotton  would  probably  not  be  freely  admitted  into 
France.  He  entertained  a  different  opinion,  and,  indeed, 
was  confident  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  would  bona 
fide  cease  on  the  first  day  of  November,  18J0,  and  that 
from  that  day  our  commercial  relations  with  France  would 
be  incumbered  with  no  restrictions  or  embarrassments 
whatever.  I  nevertheless  told  him  that  my  impressions 
were  such  that  I  would  have  a  conversation  with  General 
Turreau  upon  the  subject  in  my  interview  with  him  in  re- 
lation to  certificates  of  origin.  In  the  course  of  the  corres- 
pondence which  thence  ensued,  I  was  greatly  checked  by 
the  evident  indications  of  utter  indifference  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Madison.  Instead  of  encouraging,  he  absolutely  dis- 
couraged the  making  of  any  animadversions  upon  General 
Turreau's  letter  of  December  12th,  ISIO." 

This  letter  was  written  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  im* 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  191 

mediately  after  the  receipt  by  our  government  of  the  letter 
from  the  duke  of  Cadore,  which  has  been  quoted  in  this 
work,  and  in  which  such  language  as  the  following  was 
made  use  of — "  The  Americans  cannot  hesitate  as  to  the 
part  which  they  are  to  take.  They  ought  either  to  tear  to 
pieces  the  act  of  their  independence^  and  so  become  again  as 
before  the  revolution  the  subjects  of  England.^' — '^  Men  with- 
out  just  political  views,  without  honour,  without  energy,  may 
allege  that  payment  of  the  tribute  imposed  by  England 
may  be  submitted  to  because  it  is  light" — "  it  will  then  be 
necessary  to  fight  for  interest  after  having  refused  to  fight 
for  honour,'^'' 

Mr.  Smith's  letter  has  been  copied  at  length,  that  there 
may  be  no  mistake,  mr  any  charge  of  unfairness  concern- 
ing its  language,  or  its  import.  No  dispassionate  person 
who  reads  the  correspondence  to  which  it  relates,  and 
calls  to  mind  the  haughty,  insolent,  and  rapacious  conduct 
of  the  French  government  towards  the  United  States,  the 
violation  of  our  neutral  rights,  and  the  plunder  of  our 
commerce,  will  be  able  to  find  any  thing  in  it,  which,  in 
regard  either  to  language  or  sentiment,  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  would  be  considered  intemperate, 
or  even  improper.  And  certainly,  when  compared  with 
many  parts  of  the  correspondence  with  Great  Britain,  it 
must  be  viewed  as  tame  and  spiritless.  Much  less  ought 
it  to  have  been  treated  as  if  it  contained  a  spirit  of  hostility 
in  the  executive  department,  and  calling  for  resentment 
towards  as  high  and  responsible  an  officer  as  the  Secretary 
of  State.     But  what  was  the  result  f 

**  Instead  of  the  animadversions,"  says  Mr.  Smith,  "  con- 
tained in  the  aforegoing  letter,  the  President  directed  the 
insertion  of  simply  the  following  section  in  my  letter  of  the 
5th  of  June,  1810. 

"  As  the  John  Adams  is  daily  expected,  and  as  your 
further  communications  by  her  will  better  enable  me  to  adapt 
to  the  actual  state  of  our  affairs  with  the  French  governmentf 


192  HISTORY    OF   THE 

the  observations  proper  to  be  made  in  relation  to  their  seizure 
of  our  property y  and  to  the  letter  of  the  duke  of  Cadore  of 
the  14th  of  February,  it  is  by  the  President  deemed  expe- 
dient not  to  make  at  this  time  any  such  animadversions.  I 
cannot,  however,  forbear  informing  you^  that  a  high  indig- 
nation is  felt  by  the  President,  as  well  as  by  the  public,  at 
this  act  of  violence  on  our  property,  and  at  the  outrage, 
both  in  the  language  and  in  the  matter,  of  the  letter  of  the 
duke  of  Cadore,  so  justly  portrayed  in  your  note  to  him 
of  the  10th  of  March. 

"  It  is  worthy  of  notice,"  adds  Mr.  Smith,  "  that  the 
last  sentence  of  the  above  section  was  merely  a  communi- 
cation to  General  Armstrong,  personally,  as  to  the  impres- 
sion made  here  by  that  outrage  of  the  French  government, 
and  that  it  was  not  an  instruction  to  him  to  make  the  empe- 
ror of  France  acquainted  with  the  high  indignation  felt  on 
the  occasion  by  the  President  and  the  nation.  It  simply 
shows,  that  our  executive  had,  at  that  time,  but  just  reso- 
lution enough  to  impart  to  his  own  minister  the  sentiments 
of  indignation  that  had  been  here  excited  by  the  enormous 
outrage  of  the  Rambouillet  decree,  and  by  the  insulting 
audacity  of  the  duke  of  Cadore's  letter." 

Mr.  Smith,  in  his  exposition,  goes  on  to  remark 

"It  is  within  the  recollection  of  the  American  people, 
that  the  members  of  Congress,  during  the  last  session, 
were  much  embarrassed  as  to  the  course  most  proper  to 
be  taken  with  respect  to  our  foreign  relations,  and  that 
their  embarrassments  proceeded  principally  from  the  defect 
in  the  communications  to  them  as  to  the  views  of  the  emperor 
of  the  French.  To  supply  this  defect  was  the  great  desi- 
deratum. At  a  critical  period  of  their  perplexities  the 
arrival  at  Norfolk  of  an  Envoy  Extraordinary  from  France 
was  announced.  Immediately  thereon  all  their  proceed- 
ings touching  our  foreign  relations  were  suspended.  Their 
measures,  as  avowed  by  themselves  and  as  expected  by 
the  nation,  were  then  to  be  shaped  according  to  the  infor- 


HARITORD    CONVENTION.  193 

mation  that  might  be  received  from  Mr.  Serrurier,  espe- 
cially as  he  necessarily  must  have  left  France  long  after 
the  all-important  first  day  of  November.  Upon  his  arri- 
val at  Washington,  and  immediately  after  he  had  been 
accredited,  knowing,  as  I  did,  the  impatience  of  Congress 
and  of  my  countrymen,  I  lost  no  time  in  having  with  him 
a  conference." 

At  this  conference,  Mr.  Smith  informed  Mr.  Serruier 
that  he  would  address  a  note  to  him,  propounding  the  seve- 
ral questions  he  had  put  to  him  in  conversation,  and  lay 
his  answer  before  the  President.  He  accordingly  prepared 
such  a  letter,  and  submitted  it  to  the  President  for  his  ap- 
probation, when,  he  says,  he  was  "to  his  astonishment  told 
by  him  that  it  would  not  he  expedient  to  send  to  Mr.  Serru- 
rier any  such  note.  His  deportment  throughout  this  inter- 
view evinced  a  high  degree  of  disquietude,  which  occasion- 
ally betrayed  him  into  fretful  expressions;" — and  he  says 
he  "entreated  him,  but  in  a  manner  the  most  delicate,  not 
to  withhold  from  Congress  any  information  that  might  be 
useful  to  them  at  so  momentous  a  juncture."  He  then 
gives  the  following  as  a  copy  of  the  letter  which  he  had 
prepared — 

"  Department  of  State,  February  20,  1811. 

"Sir, — Desirous  of  laying  before  the  President  with 
the  utmost  precision  the  substance  of  our  conference  of 
this  day,  and  knowing  that  verbal  communications  are  not 
iinfrequently  misunderstood,  I  consider  it  proper  to  propose 
to  you  in  a  written  form  the  questions  which  I  have  had 
the  honour  of  submitting  to  you  in  conversation,  namely : 

"  1st.  Were  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  revoked  in  whole 
or  in  part  on  the  fifth  day  of  last  November  ?  Or  have 
they  at  any  time  posterior  to  that  day  been  so  revoked.'* 
Or  have  you  instructions  from  your  government  to  give  to 
this  government  any  assurance  or  explanation  in  relation 
to  the  revocation  or  modification  of  those  decrees  f 

25 


194  HISTORY    OF   THE 

*'  2d.  Do  the  existing  decrees  of  France  admit  into  French 
ports,  with  or  without  licenses,.  American  vessels  laden 
with  articles  not  the  produce  of  the  , United  States,  and 
under  what  regulations  and  conditions  ? 

"3d.  Do  they  admit  into  French  ports,  with  or  without 
licenses,  American  vessels  laden  with  articles  not  the  pro- 
duce of  the  United  States,' and  under  what  regulations  and 
conditions  f 

"4th.  Do  they  permit  American  vessels  with  or  without 
licenses,  to  return  from  France  to  the  United  States,  and 
upon  what  terms  and  conditions  ? 

"5th.  Is  the  importation  into  France  of  any  articles,  the 
produce  of  the  United  States,  absolutely  prohibited  f  And 
if  so,  what  are  the  articles  so  prohibited,  and  especially 
are  tobacco  and  cotton  ? 

"6th.  \i?i\e  you  instructions  from  your  government  to 
give  to  this  government  any  assurance  or  explanation  in 
relation  to  the  American  vessels  and  cargoes  seized  under 
the  Rambouillet  decree  ?" 

It  will  be  remarked  that  the  inquiries  in  this  letter  were 
intended  to  draw  from  the  French  minister  information  re- 
specting the  great  points  of  complaint  and  controversy 
between  the  United  States  and  France,  viz.  whether  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  were  actually  repealed;  whether 
the  practice  of  granting  licenses  to  the  American  trade 
was  continued,  and  to  what  extent ;  whether  American 
produce  was  admitted  into  French  ports,  and  on  what 
terms;  and  whether  he  was  instructed  to  give  any  expla- 
nation respecting  the  American  property  seized  under  the 
Rambouillet  decree.''  These  were  subjects  of  the  highest 
interest  to  our  citizens,  and  the  government  spent  a  great 
deal  of  time,  in  one  form  and  another,  in  complaining  of 
the  treatment  our  country  had  received,  that  our  country- 
men had  been  plundered  of  their  property,  and  interrupted 
in  their  commerce;  and  particularly  on  the  subject  of  the 
repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  they  had  not  only 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  195 

insiste((3  upon  it  that  such  a  repeal  had  taken  place,  but  the 
President  had  formally  and  officially  proclaimed  it  to  the 
nation;  and  yet,  when  his  confidential  minister,  the  organ 
of  communication  and  intercourse  with  foreign  govern- 
ments, proposed  to  make  specific  inquiries  of  the  French 
minister  on  these  several  subjects,  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
precise  facts  concerning  them,  he  was  told  by  the  President, 
*'that  it  would  not  be  expedient  to  send  to  Mr.  Serrurier 
any  such  note."  Who  can  doubt  respecting  the  kind  and 
degree  of  influence  which  was  exercised  over  Mr.  Madison, 
when  he  refused  to  adopt  the  only  course  that  existed,  by 
which  the  information  that  was  necessary  could  be  obtain- 
ed ?  Who  can  avoid  the  conclusion  that  it  proceeded  either 
from  a  servile  fear  of,  or  a  most  unwarrantable  and  repre- 
hensible attachment  to  France  f 

Among  the  extraordinary  occurrences  of  the  period,  one 
of  the  most  remarkable  was  that  which  has  been  called 
the  Henry  plot.  The  history  of  that  memorable  aflfair  may 
\^e  collected  from  the  following  documents. 

LOn  the  9th  of  March,  1812,  President  Madison  trans-  f-idl 
itted  the  following  message  to  both  houses  of  Congress.  /  ( 
"I  lay  before  Congress  copies  of  certain  documents  ^^"^^^ 
which  remain  in  the  department  of  state.  They  prove 
that,  at  a  recent  period,  whilst  the  United  States,  notwith- 
standing the  wrongs  Sustained  by  them,  ceased  not  to  ob- 
serve the  laws  of  peace  and  neutrality  towards  Great 
Britain,  and  in  the  midst  of  amicable  professions  and  nego- 
tiations on  the  part  of  the  British  government,  through  its 
public  minister  here,  a  secret  agent  of  that  government  was 
employed  in  certain  states,  more  especially  at  the  seat  of 
government  in  Massachusetts,  in  fomenting  disaffection  to 
the  constituted  authorities  of  the  nation,  and  in  intrigues: 
with  the  disaffected,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  resist- 
mice  to  the  laws,  and,  eventually, ,  in  concert  with  a  British 
force,  of  destroying  the  Union  and  forming  the  eastern  pari 
thereof  into  a  political  connection  with  Great  Britain. 


196  HISTORY    OF   THE 

**  In  addition  to  the  effect  which  the  discovery  of  such  a 
procedure  ought  to  have  on  the  public  councils,  it  will  not 
fail  to  render  more  dear  to  the  hearts  of  all  good  citizens, 
that  happy  union  of  these  states,  which,  under  divine  Pro- 
vidence, is  the  guaranty  of  their  liberties,  their  safety,  their 
tranquillity,  and  their  prosperity." 

This  message  was  accompanied  by  a  large  number  of 
documents,  from  which  a  few  extracts  only  will  be  copied. 
The  following  is  the  first  in  the  series 

"  Philadelphia,  Feb.  20,  1812, 

"  Sir — Much  observation  and  experience  have  convinced 
me,  that  the  injuries  and  insults  with  which  the  United 
States  have  been  so  long  and  so  frequently  visited,  and 
which  cause  their  present  embarrassment,  have  been  owing 
to  an  opinion  entertained  by  foreign  states — '  That  in  any 
measure  tending  to  wound  their  pride,  or  provoke  their  hosti- 
lity, the  government  of  this  country  could  never  induce  a 
great  majority  of  its  citizens  to  concur.''  And,  as  many  of 
the  evils  which  flow  from  the  influence  of  this  opinion  on 
the  policy  of  foreign  nations,  may  be  removed  by  any  act 
that  can  produce  unanimity  among  all  parties  in  America,  I 
voluntarily  tender  to  you,  sir,  such  means  as  I  possess 
towards  promoting  so  desirable  and  important  an  object; 
which,  if  accomplished,  cannot  fail  to  extinguish,  perhaps 
forever,  those  expectations  abroad,  which  may  protract 
indefinitely,  an  accommodation  of  existing  difl?erences,  and 
check  the  progress  of  industry  and  prosperity  in  this  rising 
empire. 

**  I  have  the  honour  to  transmit  herewith  the  documents 
and  correspondence  relating  to  an  important  mission,  in 
which  I  was  employed  by  Sir  James  Craig,  the  late  go- 
vernor-general of  the  British  provinces  in  North  America, 
in  the  winter  of  the  year  1809. 

*'  The  publication  of  these  papers  will  demonstrate  a 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  197 

fact  not  less  valuable  than  the  good  already  proposed  ;  it 
will  prove  that  no  reliance  ought  to  be  placed  on  the  pro- 
fessions of  good  faith  of  an  administration,  which,  by  a 
series  of  disastrous  events,  has  fallen  into  such  hands  as  a 
Castlereagh,  a  Wellesley,  or  a  Liverpool — I  should  rather 
say,  into  the  hands  of  the  stupid  subalterns,  to  whom  the 
pleasures  and  the  indolence  of  those  ministers  have  con- 
signed it.  In  contributing  to  the  good  of  the  United  States 
by  an  exposition,  which  cannot  (I  think)  fail  to  solve  and  melt 
all  division  and  disunion  among  its  citizens ;  I  flatter  myself 
with  the  fond  expectation,  that  when  it  is  made  public  in  Eng- 
land, it  will  add  one  great  motive  to  the  many  that  already 
exist,  to  induce  that  nation  to  withdraw  its  confidence  from 
merii  whose  political  career  is  a  fruitful  source  of  injury  and 
embarrassment  in  America  ;  of  injustice  and  misery  in  Ire- 
land ;  of  distress  and  apprehension  in  England ;  and  con- 
tempt every  where. 

*'  In  making  this  communication  to  you,  sir,  I  deem  it 
incumbent  on  me,  distinctly  and  unequivocally  to  state, 
that  I  adopt  no  party  views ;  that  I  have  not  changed  any 
of  my  political  opinions  ;  that  I  neither  seek  nor  desire  the 
patronage  nor  countenance  of  any  government,  nor  of  any 
party;  and  that  in  addition  to  the  motives  already  ex- 
pressed, /  am  influenced  by  a  just  resentment  of  the  perfidy 
and  dishonour  of  those  who  first  violated  the  conditions  upon 
which  I  received  their  confidence;  who  have  injured  me,  and 
disappointed  the  expectations  of  my  friends ;  and  left  me 
no  choice,  but  between  a  degrading  acquiescence  in  injus- 
tice, and  a  retaliation  which  is  necessary  to  secure  to  me 
my  own  respect. 

"  This  wound  will  be  felt  where  it  is  merited  ;  and  if  Sir 
James  Craig  still  live,  his  share  of  the  pain  will  excite  no 
sympathy  among  those  who  are  at  all  in  the  secret  of  our 
connection. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c.  <fcc. 

"  J.  Henry. 
"  To  James  Monroe,  Esq.  Secretary  of  State." 


198  -  HISTORY    OF   THE 


"MR.    RYLAND,   SECRETARY  TO  SIR  JAMES   CRAIG,    GOVER- 

NOUR  GENERAL  OF  CANADA,  TO  MR.  HENRY. 
**  jflost  secret  and  confidential. 

"  Quebec,  January  26,  1809. 

"  My  Dear  Sir — The  extraordinary  situation  of  things 
at  this  time  in  the  neighbouring  states,  has  suggested  to  the 
governor  in  chief,  the  idea  of  employing  you  on  a  secret 
and  confidential  mission  to  Boston,  provided  an  arrange- 
ment can  be  made  to  meet  the  important  end  in  view, 
without  throwing  an  absolute  obstacle  in  the  way  of  your 
professional  pursuits.  The  information  and  political  ob- 
servations heretofore  received  from  you,  were  transmitted 
by  his  excellency  to  the  secretary  of  state,  who  has  ex- 
pressed his  particular  approbation  of  them  ;  and  there  is 
no  doubt  that  your  able  execution  of  such  a  mission  as  I 
have  above  suggested,  would  give  you  a  claim  not  only  on 
thegovernour-general,butonhis  majesty's  ministers,  which 
might  eventually  contribute  to  your  advantage.  You  will 
have  the  goodness  therefore  to  acquaint  me,  for  his  excel- 
lency's information,  whether  you  could  make  it  convenient 
to  engage  in  a  mission  of  this  nature,  and  what  pecuniary 
assistance  would  be  requisite  to  enable  you  to  undertake  it 
without  injury  to  yourself. 

"  At  present  it  is  only  necessary  for  me  to  add,  that  the 
governour  would  furnish  you  with  a  cypher  for  carrying  on 
your  correspondence  ;  and  that  in  case  the  leading  party  in 
any  of  the  states  wished  to  open  a  communication  with  this 
government,  their  views  might  be  communicated  through 
you. 

**I  am,  with  great  truth  and  regard,  &c. 

'♦  Herman  W.  Ryland." 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION,  199 


"SIR  JAMES  CRAIG  tO  MR.  HENRY. 
**  Most  secret  and  confidential. 

''  Quebec,  February  6,  1809. 

"  Sir — As  you  have  so  readily  undertaken  the  service, 
which  I  have  suggested  to  you,  as  being  likely  to  be  at- 
tended with  much  benefit  to  the  public  interests,  I  am  to 
request  that  with  your  earliest  conveniency  you  will  pro- 
ceed to  Boston. 

"  The  principal  object  that  I  recommend  to  your  atten- 
tion, is  the  endeavour  to  obtain  the  most  accurate  infor- 
mation of  the  true  state  of  affairs  in  that  part  of  the  Union, 
which  from  its  wealth,  the  number  of  its  inhabitants,  and 
the  known  intelligence  and  ability  of  several  of  its  leading 
men,  must  naturally  possess  a  very  considerable  influence 
over,  and  will  indeed  probably  lead  the  other  eastern  states 
of  America,  in  the  part  that  they  may  take  at  this  impor- 
tant crisis. 

"  I  shall  not  pretend  to  point  out  to  you  the  mode  by 
which  you  will  be  most  likely  to  obtain  this  important  in- 
formation ;  your  own  judgment,  and  the  connection  which 
you  may  have  in  the  town,  must  be  your  guide.  I  think  it 
however  necessary  to  put  you  on  your  guard  against  the 
sanguineness  of  an  aspiring  party  ;  the  federalists,  as  I 
understand,  have  at  all  times  discovered  a  leaning  to  this 
disposition,  and  their  being  under  its  particular  influence  at 
this  moment,  is  the  more  to  be  expected  from  their  having 
no  ill  founded  ground  for  their  hopes  of  being  nearer  the 
attainment  of  their  object  than  they  have  been  for  some 
years  past. 

"  In  the  general  terms  which  I  have  made  use  of  in  de- 
scribing the  object  which  I  recommend  to  your  attention, 
it  is  scarcely  necessary  that  I  should  observe,  I  include  the 
state  of  the  public  opinions,  both  with  regard  to  their  inter- 
nal politicks,  and  to  the  probability  of  a  war  with  England ; 


200  HISTORY    OF   THE 

the  comparative  strength  of  the  two  great  parties  into 
which  the  country  is  divided,  and  the  views  and  designs  of 
that  which  may  ultimately  prevail. 

'•'  It  has  been  supposed  that  if  the  federalists  of  the  eas- 
tern states  should  be  successful  in  obtaining  that  decided 
influence  which  may  enable  them  to  direct  the  publick 
opinion,  it  is  not  improbable  that  rather  than  submit  to  a 
continuance  of  the  difficulties  and  distress  to  which  they  are 
now  subject,  they  will  exert  that  influence  to  bring  about  a 
separation  of  the  general  union.  The  earliest  information 
on  this  subject  may  be  of  great  consequence  to  our  govern- 
ment, as  it  may  also  be,  that  it  should  be  informed,  how  far 
in  such  an  event  they  would  look  up  to  England  for  assist- 
ance ^  or  be  disposed  to  enter  into  a  connection  with  us. 

**  Although  it  would  be  highly  inexpedient  that  you  should 
in  any  manner  appear  as  an  avowed  agent,  yet  if  you  could 
contrive  to  obtain  an  intimacy  with  any  of  the  leading 
party,  it  may  not  be  improper  that  you  should  insinuate, 
though  with  great  caution,  that  if  they  should  icish  to  enter 
into  any  communication  with  our  government  through  me,  you 
are  authorized  to  receive  any  such,  and  will  safely  transmit 
it  to  me;  and  as  it  may  not  be  impossible  that  they  should 
require  some  document  by  which  they  may  be  assured  that 
you  are  really  in  the  situation  in  which  you  represent  your- 
self;  I  enclose  a  credential  to  be  produced  in  that  view; 
but  [  most  particularly  enjoin  and  direct  that  you  do  not 
make  any  use  of  this  paper,  unless  a  desire  to  that  pur- 
pose should  l>e  expressed,  and  unless  yon  see  good  ground 
for  expecting  that  the  doing  so  may  lead  to  a  more  confiden- 
tial communication  than  you  can  otherwise  look  for. 

"In  passing  through  the  state  of  Vermont,  you  will  of 
course  exert  your  endeavours  to  procure  all  the  informa- 
tion that  the  short  stay  you  will  probably  make  there  will 
admit  of.  You  will  use  your  own  discretion  as  to  delaying 
your  journey,  with  this  view,  more  or  less,  in  proportion  to 
your  prospects  of  obtaining  any  information  of  consequence. 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  201 

**I  request  to  hear  from  you  as  frequently  as  possible ; 
and  as  letters  directed  to  me  might  excite  suspicion,  it 
may  be  as  well,  that  you  put  them  under  cover  to  Mr. 

,  and  as  even  the  addressing  letters  alvt^ays  to 

the  same  person  might  attract  notice,  I  recommend  your 
sometimes  addressing  your  packet  to  the  chief  justice  here, 
or  occasionally,  though  seldom,  to  Mr.  Ryland,  but  never 
virith  the  addition  of  his  official  description.     I  am,  &c. 

"James  H.  Craig." 

"  Copy  of  the  '  Credentials'  given  hy  Sir  James  Craig  to 

Mr.  Henry. 
[Seal.] 

'*  The  bearer,  Mr.  John  Henry,  is  employed  by  me,  and 
full  confidence  may  be  placed  in  him  for  any  communica- 
tion which  any  person  may  wish  to  make  to  me  in  the  busi- 
ness committed  to  him.  In  faith  of  which,  I  have  given 
him  this  under  my  hand  and  seal  at  Quebec,  this  6th  day 
of  February,  1809. 

"J.H.Craig." 

Mr.  Henry,  according  to  the  account  contained  in  his 
correspondence,  after  having  received  his  instructions, 
proceeded  to  Burlington,  in  Vermont,  where  he  passed  a 
few  days,  apparently  listening  to  such  conversations,  and 
chit-chat,  as  occurred  in  his  hearing.  In  a  letter  from 
that  place,  he  says  he  found  the  embargo  laws  were  con- 
sidered as  unnecessary,  oppressive,  and  unconstitutional ; 
and  that,  in  his  opinion,  if  Massachusetts  should  take  any 
bold  step  towards  resisting  their  execution,  Vermont  would 
join  her  ;  and  he  adds — 
\  "  I  learn  that  the  governor  of  this  state  is  now  visiting 
th6  towns  in  the  northern  section  of  it ;  and  makes  no  se- 
cret of  his  determination,  as  commander  in  chief  of  the 
militia,  to  refuse  obedience  to  any  command  from  the  ge- 
neral government,  which  can  tend  to  interrupt  the  good 

26 


202  HISTORY    OF   THE 

understanding  that  prevails  between  the  citizens  of  Ver^ 
mont  and  his  majesty's  subjects  in  Canada."; 

On  the  19th  of  February  he  dated  a  lettei^  from  Wind- 
sor,  Vermont,  where  he  says  the  federal  party  declared, 
that  in  the  event  of  a  war,  the  state  of  Vermont  would 
treat  separately  with  Great  Britain ;  and  that  the  demo- 
crats would  risk  every  thing  in  preference  to  a  coalition 
with  that  nation. 

On  the  5th  of  March,  he  writes  from  Boston,  and  says, 
**  It  does  not  yet  appear  necessary  that  I  should  discover 
to  any  person  the  purpose  of  my  visit  to  Boston  ;  nor  is  it 
probable  that  I  should  be  compelled,  for  the  sake  of  gain- 
ing more  knowledge  of  the  arrangements  of  the  federal 
party  in  these  states,  to  avow  myself  as  a  regular  autho- 
rized agent  of  the  British  government,  even  to  those  indi- 
viduals who  would  feel  equally  bound  with  myself  to  pre- 
serve with  the  utmost  inscrutability  so  important  a  secret 
from  the  public  eye.  I  have  sufficient  means  of  informa- 
tion to  enable  me  to  judge  of  the  proper  period  for  offer- 
ing the  co-operation  of  Great  Britain,  and  opening  a  cor- 
respondence between  the  governor-general  of  British 
America  and  those  individuals  who,  from  the  part  they 
take  in  the  opposition  to  the  national  government,  or  the 
influence  they  may  possess  in  any  new  order  of  things  that 
may  grow  out  of  the  present  differences,  should  be  quali- 
fied to  act  on  behalf  of  the  northern  states.  An  appre- 
hension of  any  such  state  of  things  as  is  presupposed  by 
these  remarks  begins  to  subside,  since  it  has  appeared  by 
the  conduct  of  the  general  government  that  it  is  seriously 
alarmed  at  the  menacing  attitude  of  the  northern  states." 

On  the  7th  of  March,  he  wrote  again  from  Boston. 
The  following  is  an  extract  from  his  letter.  *'I  have 
already  given  a  decided  opinion  that  a  declaration  of  war 
is  not  to  be  expected :  but,  contrary  to  all  reasonable  cal- 
culation, should  the  Congress  possess  spirit  and  indepen- 
dence enough  to  place  their  popularity  in  jeopardy  by  so 


HARtFORD   CONVENTION.  203 

'Strong  a  measure,  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  will 
give  the  tone  to  the  neighboring  states;  will  declare  itself 
permanent,  until  a  new"  election  of  members ;  invite  a  Con- 
gress to  be  composed  of  delegates  from  the  federal  states, 
and  erect  a  separate  government  for  their  common  defence 
and  common  interest.  This  congress  would  probably  be- 
gin by  abrogating  the  offensive  laws  and  adopting  a  plan 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  power  and  authority  thus  as- 
sumed. They  would  by  such  an  act  be  in  a  condition  to 
make  or  receive  proposals  from  Great  Britain;  and  I 
should  seize  the  first  moment  to  open  a  correspondence 
with  your  excellency.  Scarce  a»y  other  aid  would  be  ne- 
cessary, and  perhaps  none  required,  than  a  few  vessels  of 
war,  from  the  Halifax  station,  to  protect  the  maritime 
towns  from  the  little  navy  which  is  at  the  disposal  of  the 
national  government.  What  permanent  connection  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  this  section  of  the  Republic  would 
grow  out  of  a  civil  -commotion,  such  as  might  be  expected, 
no  person  is  prepared  to  describe  ;  but  it  seems  that  a  strict 
alliance  must  result  of  necessity.  At  present,  the  oppo- 
sition party  iconfine  their  calculations  merely  to  resistance ; 
and  I  can  assure  you  that  at  this  moment,  they  do  not 
freely  entertain  the  project  of  withdrawing  the  eastern 
states  from  the  Union,  finding  it  a  very  unpopular  topick; 
although  a  course  of  events,  such  as  I  have  already  men- 
tioned, would  inevitably  produce  an  incurable  alienation 
of  the  New-England  from  the  southern  states. 

"  The  truth  is,  the  common  people  have  so  long  regard- 
ed the  constitution  of  the  United  States  with  complacency, 
that  they  are  now  only  disposed  in  this  quarter  to  treat  it 
like  a  truant  mistress,  whom  they  would  for  a  time  put 
away  on  a  separate  maintenance,  but  without  further. and 
greater  provocation  would  not  absolutely  repudiate." 

\The  series  of  letters  is  continued  until  the  25th  of  May, 
when  the  14th  in  number  was  written  at  Boston.  By  that 
time  Mr.  Henry  appears  to  have  been  fully  convinced  that 


204  HISTORY    OF    THE 

his  mission  was  not  likely  to  terminate  successfully/  He 
says — ''I  beg  leave  to  suggest,  that  in  the  present  state  of 
things  in  this  country,  my  presence  can  contribute  very 
little  to  the  interests  of  Great  Britain,"  And  it  seems 
that  his  employers  were  under  a  similar  impression ;  for 
on  the  4th  of  May,  Mr.  Secretary  Ryland  wrote  to  him  in 
a  formal  manner  that  his  speedy  return  was  hoped  for,  a& 
the  object  of  his  journey  seemed  to  be  at  an  end.  And  on 
the  12th  of  June,  he  addressed  his  letter.  No.  15,  to  the 
governor-general  from  Montreal,  informing  him  of  his 
arrival  at  that  city. 

These  papers  were  referred,  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
ientatives,  to  the  committee  on  foreign  relations ;  who 
made  the  following  report — 

"The  committee  of  foreign  relations,  to  whom  was  re- 
ferred the  President's  message  of  the  9th  instant,  covering 
copies  of  certain  documents  communicated  to  him  by  a 
Mr.  John  Henry ;  beg  leave  to  report,  in  part — 

*'  That  although  they  did  not  deem  it  necessary  or  pro- 
per to  go  into  an  investigation  of  the  authenticity  of  docu- 
ments communicated  to  Congress  on  the  responsibility  of 
a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  government,  it  may,  neverthe- 
less, be  satisfactory  to  the  house  to  be  informed,  that  the 
original  papers,  with  the  evidences  relating  to  them,  in 
possession  of  the  Executive,  were  submitted  ta  their  ex- 
amination, and  were  such  as  fully  to  satisfy  the  committee 
of  their  genuineness. 

"The  circumstances  under  which  the  disclosures  of 
Henry  were  made  to  the  government,  involving  considera- 
tions of  political  expediency,  have  prevented  the  commit- 
tee from  making  those  disclosures  the  basis  of  any  pro- 
ceeding against  him.  And  from  the  careful  concealment^ 
on  his  party  of  every  circumstance  which  could  lead  to  the  dis- 
cfycery  and  punishment  of  any  individuals  in  the  United 
States  (should  there  be  any  such)  who  were  criminally  con- 
nected with  himf  no  distinct  object  was  presented  to  the  com- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  205 

mittee  by  his  communication,  for  the  exercise  of  the 
power  with  which  they  were  invested  of  sending  for  per- 
sons and  papers. 

/  "On  being  informed,  however,  that  there  was  a  fo- 
reigner in  the  city  of  Washington,  who  lately  came  to  this 
country  from  Europe,  with  Henry,  and  was  supposed  to  be 
in  his  confidence,  the  committee  thought  proper  to  send 
for  him.  His  examination,  taken  under  oath,  and  reduced 
to  writing,  they  herewith  submit  to  the  house.    ) 

*'The  transaction  disclosed  by  the  President's  message, 
presents  to  the  minds  of  the  committee  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  British  government,  at  a  period  of  peace,  and  during 
the  most  friendly  professions,  have  been  deliberately  and  per- 
fidiously pursuing  measures  to  divide  these  States,  and  to  in- 
volve our  citizens  in  all  the  guilt  of  treason,  and  the  horrors 
of  a  civil  war.  It  is  not,  however,  the  intention  of  the 
committee  to  dwell  upon  a  proceeding,  which,  at  all  times, 
and  among  all  nations,  has  been  considered  as  one  of  the 
most  aggravated  character ;  and  which,  from  the  nature 
of  our  government,  depending  on  a  virtuous  union  of  sen- 
timent, ought  to  be  regarded  by  us  with  the  deepest  ab- 
horrence." 

This  report  was  accompanied  by  the  testimony  of  the 
foreigner  alluded  to  in  it,  and  who  signs  the  deposition  as 
Count  Edward  de  Crillon,  taken  and  reduced  to  writing 
by  the  committee. 

Upon  the  publication  of  the  message  and  the  papers 
connected  with  it,  the  following  document  was  communi- 
cated to  the  President  in  the  following  message — 

**  I  lay  before  Congress  a  letter  from  the  envoy  extra- 
ordinary and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  Groat  Britain,  to 
the  Secretary  of  State. 

"James  Madison." 

"  Mr.  Foster  to  Mr.  Monroe.  Washington,  March  11th,  1812. 
"  The  undersigned,  his  Britannick  majesty's  envoy  extra- 


V 


206  HISTORY   OP   THE 

ordinary,  and  minister  plenipotentiary  to  the  United  States, 
has  read  in  the  public  papers  of  this  city,  with  the  deepest 
concern,  the  message  sent  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  Congress  on  the  9th  instant,  and  the  documents 
which  accompanied  it. 

**In  the  utter  ignorance  of  the  undersigned  as  to  all  the 
circumstances  alluded  to  in  those  documents,  he  can  only 
disclaim  most  solemnly,  on  his  own  part,  the  having  had 
any  knowledge  whatever  of  the  existence  of  such  a  mission, 
or  of  such  transactions  as  the  communication  of  Mr.  Henry 
refers  to,  and  express  his  conviction,  that  from  what  he 
knows  of  those  branches  of  his  majesty's  government  with 
which  he  is  in  the  habit  of  having  intercourse,  no  counte- 
nance whatever  was  given  by  them  to  any  schemes  hostile 
to  the  internal  tranquility  of  the  United  States. 

'*  The  undersigned,  however,  cannot  but  trust  that  the 
American  government  and  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  will  take  into  consideration  the  character  of  the  in- 
dividual who  has  made  the  communication  in  question,  and 
will  suspend  any  further  judgment  on  its  merits  until  the 
circumstances  shall  have  been  made  known  to  his  majesty's 
government. 

(Signed)     Aug.  J.  Foster." 

John  Henry  was  born  a  subject  of  Great  Britain.  For  a 
while,  he  had  resided  in  this  country,  and  held  a  commission 
in  the  army  of  the  United  States.  Having  left  the  service, 
by  his  own  account  he  resided  for  some  time  in  Vermont, 
and  afterwards  returned  to  his  natural  allegiance,  and  be- 
came a  resident  of  Canada.  There,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  year  1809,  if  his  own  account  is  to  be  credited,  he  was 
employed  by  Sir  James  H.  Craig,  governor  of  Canada,  to 
repair  to  Boston,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 
the  federal  politicians  of  the  New  England  states,  parti- 
cularly those  of  Massachusetts,  were  desirous  of  withdraw- 
ing from  the  Union,  and  forming  a  close  connection  with 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  207 

Great  Britain.  Accordingly  in  the  month  of  February  of 
that  year,  he  commenced  his  journey,  and  after  spending 
some  time  in  Vermont,  and  passing  through  New  Hamp- 
shire, he  reached  Boston  early  in  the  month  of  March. 
Having  taken  his  station  in  the  New  England  capital,  he 
opened  his  correspondence  with  his  employers  in  Canada. 
His  first  letter  is  dated  March  5th,  1809.  In  that  he  re- 
marked, that  it  had  not  thus  far  appeared  necessary  for 
him  to  discover  to  any  person  the  object  of  his  visit ;  nor 
was  it  probable  that  he  should  find  it  necessary,  for  the 
purpose  of  gaining  a  knowledge  of  the  arrangements  of 
the  federal  party,  to  avow  himself  as  a  regular  authorised 
agent  of  the  British  government,  even  to  those  who  would 
keep  the  secret — that  he  had  sufficient  means  of  informa- 
tion to  enable  him  to  judge  of  the  proper  time  for  offering 
the  co-operation  of  Great  Britain,  and  opening  a  corres- 
pondence between  the  governor-general  of  British  Ame- 
rica, and  disaffected  individuals  in  Massachusetts.  Accord- 
ingly, he  remained  unknown  at  Boston  till  the  25th  of 
May  following,  when  he  wrote  to  his  principals  at  Quebec, 
that  it  would  he  unnecessary  for  Mm  in  the  existing  state  of 
things,  and  unavailing  also,  to  attempt  to  carry  into  effect  the 
original  purposes  of  his  mission.  He  was  soon  recalled  from 
that  mission,  and  returned  to  Canada ;  and  in  1811  was 
in  England,  petitioning  the  British  government  for  com- 
pensation for  his  services  abovementioned.  For  some 
cause  or  other,  the  ministry  declined  paying  him ;  but  re- 
ferred him  to  the  governor  of  Canada,  on  the  ground  that 
they  had  not  discovered  any  wish  on  the  part  of  Sir  James 
Craig  that  Henry^s  claims  for  compensation  should  be  re- 
ferred to  the  mother  country,  and  because  no  allusion  was 
made  to  any  kind>  of  arrangement  or  agreement  that  had 
been  made  by  that  officer  with  him. 

It  is  certainly  a  very  extraordinary  circumstance,  that  in 
the  absence  of  all  proof  that  the  British  government  ever 


208  HISTORY    OF    THE 

had  the  least  knowledge  of  Henry's  mission  until  long 
after  it  was  finished,  that  the  President  should  have  made 
use  of  the  following  language,  when  speaking  of  the  docu- 
ments which  accompanied  his  message  to  Congress — 

"  They  prove  that,  at  a  recent  period,  whilst  the  United 
States,  notwithstanding  the  wrongs  sustained  by  them, 
ceased  not  to  observe  the  laws  of  peace  and  neutrality 
towards  Great  Britain,  and  in  the  midst  of  amicable  pro- 
fessions and  negotiations  on  the  part  of  the  British  govern- 
ment, through  its  public  minister  here,  a  secret  agent  of  thai 
government  was  employed  in  certain  states,  more  especially 
at  the  seat  of  government  in  Massachusetts,  in  fomenting 
disaffection  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  nation^  and  in 
intrigues  with  the  disaffected,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
about  resistance  to  the  laws,  and,  eventually,  in  concert  with  a 
British  force,  of  destroying  the  Union  and  forming  the  eastern 
part  thereof  into  a  political  connection  with  Great  Britain,^^\ 
I  The  committee  on  foreign  relations,  to  whom  the  mes- 
sage and  documents  were  referred,  in  their  report,  make 
the  following  remarks — "  The  transaction  disclosed  by  the 
President's  message,  presents  to  the  minds  of  the  commit- 
tee, conclusive  evidence,  that  the  British  government,  at  a 
period  of  peace,  and  during  the  most  friendly  professions, 
have  been  deliberately  and  perfidiously  pursuing  measures  to 
divide  these  States,  and  to  involve  our  citizens  in  all  the  guilt 
of  treason,  and  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war.^'' 

At  the  time  of  this  occurrence,  it  is  very  apparent  from 
a  review  of  the  general  state  of  things,  and  from  the  cha- 
racter and  course  of  their  measures,  that  the  government 
of  this  country  had  resolved  on  a  war  with  Great  Britain. 
Having  formed  that  determination,  it  was  natural  for  them 
to  pursue  such  a  course  as  would  be  likely  to  excite  the 
public  resentment  towards  thai  nation.  This  affair  of 
Henry,  in  any  other  light  in  which  it  might  be  considered, 
was  calculated   to   disgrace  the  American   government. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  209 

Hence  it  was  doubtless  viewed  as  indispensable  to  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  main  object,  that  Henry's  plot  should 
be  charged  over  to  the  British  government,  as  an  attempt 
on  their  part  to  produce  discord  and  division  among  the 
States.  And  both  President  Madison,  and  the  committee 
on  foreign  relations,  make  the  bold,  unqualified,  and  cer- 
tainly unfounded  assertion,  that  the  documents  connected 
with  the  transaction  prove  such  a  flagitious  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  British  government  to  destroy  the  Union,  in- 
volve the  citizens  in  the  guilt  of  treason,  and  the  horrors 
of  a  civil  war,  and  to  form  a  political  connection  in  the 
eastern  states  with  Great  Britain.  But  so  far  from  this 
being  true,  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  British 
government  ever  knew  of  the  employment  of  Henry  by  the 
governor-general  of  Canada,  that  he  ever  visited  Boston 
for  such  a  purpose,  or  that  they  even  knew  there  was  such 
a  man  in  existence.  And  when  called  upon  by  Henry  for 
compensation  for  his  services,  the  minister  at  London  re- 
ferred him  back  to  the  colonial  government,  by  which  he 
had  been  employed,  with  the  remark,  that  it  did  not  ap- 
pear that  Sir  James  Craig  had  ever  expressed  a  wish  that 
Henry  should  apply  for  his  pay  to  the  government  of  the 
mother  country,  or  that  any  arrargement  for  that  pur- 
pose had  been  even  alluded  to.  From  whence  then  does 
the  inference  arise,  that  this  was  a  measure  for  which 
the  British  government  was  chargeable  ?  Merely  from 
the  remark  in  Ryland's  letter,  which  has  been  alluded 
to. 

Is  there  not,  however,  strong  ground  for  the  belief,  that 
one  important  object  of  this  absurd,  ridiculous,  and  dis- 
graceful transaction,  was  to  fix  a  degree  of  odium  upon 
the  New  England  states,  and  especially  upon  a  certain 
class  of  New  England  politicians  ?  It  was  well  known 
that  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  those  states  were 
opposed  to  the  approaching  declaration  of  war.  It  was 
not  believed  by  those  who  were  the  best  informed  on  the 

27 


210  HISTORY   OF   THE 

subject,  that  the  real  object  of  hostilities  was  avowed  by 
those  who  were  the  most  earnestly  bent  on  bringing  the 
war  upon  the  nation.  They  were  perfectly  aware  of  the 
kind  of  influence  which  was  exercising  to  bring  it  to  pass, 
and  as  they  could  not  justify  such  a  measure,  under  such 
circumstances,  to  their  consciences,  they  were  steadily  and 
firmly  opposed  to  it.  To  excite  the  feelings  of  the  country 
against  them,  no  more  efficacious  mode  could  be  devised, 
than  to  accuse  them  of  being  false  to  their  country — to  re- 
present them  as  intrigueing  with  the  power  which  was  in  so 
short  a  time  intended  to  be  the  open  and  declared  enemy 
of  the  United  States,  to  destroy  the  Union,  and  to  re-unite 
a  part  of  its  territory  and  inhabitants  to  the  British  nation. 
The  miserable  farce  got  up  by  Henry  furnished  the  most 
plausible  opportunity  to  accomplish  the  object ;  and  it  was 
laid  hold  of  for  that  purpose  with  the  utmost  avidity.  To 
show  how  utterly  unfounded  this  whole  plot  against  New 
England  was,  it  will  be  remarked,  that  during  the  whole 
period  of  Henry's  residence  in  Boston,  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  ever  conversed  with  a  single  individual  respecting 
the  object  of  his  mission,  that  any  overtures  of  the  kind 
alluded  to  were  ever  made  to  him ;  nor  does  he  mention 
the  name  of  even  a  solitary  person,  who  ever  uttered,  even 
by  accident,  a  sentence  of  disaffection  to  the  Union  of  the 
States,  or  of  a  wish  to  form  a  connection  with  Great  Bri- 
tain. And  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  in  their 
report  on  this  subject,  say — "  The  circumstances  under 
which  the  disclosures  of  Henry  were  made  to  the  govern- 
ment, involving  considerations  of  political  expediency,  have 
prevented  the  committee  from  making  those  disclosures 
the  basis  of  any  proceeding  against  him.  And  from  the 
careful  concealment,  on  his  part,  of  every  circumstance 
which  could  lead  to  the  discovery  and  punishment  of  any 
individuals  in  the  United  States  (should  there  be  any  such) 
who  were  criminally  connected  with  him,  no  distinct  object 
was  presented  to  the  committee  by  his  communication  for 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  211 

the  exercise  of  the  power  with  which  they  were  invested, 
of  sending  for  persons  and  papers." 

In  this  state  of  things,  without  the  slightest  evidence,  or 
any  possible  clue,  which  would  warrant  even  the  suspicion 
of  guilt  in  a  single  inhabitant  of  Massachusetts,  or  of  New 
England  at  large,  nothing  remained  but  to  leave  them  ex- 
posed to  the  conjectures  of  those  who  seemed  to  consider 
it  a  species  of  patriotism  to  upbraid  and  reproach  the  in- 
habitants of  those  states  as  the  enemies  of  their  country. 

Henry,  in  this  transaction,  was  accompanied  by  a  fo- 
reign adventurer,  who  called  his  name  Crillon  ;  and  who, 
to  give  dignity  to  the  enterprise,  added  the  title  of  count  to 
his  escutcheon.  He  went  through  a  long  examination, 
under  oath,  before  the  committee  of  foreign  relations  ;  but 
for  what  particular  purpose  his  testimony  was  published, 
unless  it  was  to  swell  the  amount  of  the  documents,  it  is 
not  easy  to  say.  The  President  of  the  United  States  re- 
warded the  profligate  Henry  with  the  sum  of  fifty  thou- 
sand DOLLARS,  for  this  contemptible  disclosure  of  his  own 
baseness,  and  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  himself  to  pro- 
duce an  effect  upon  popular  feeling  and  opinion  in  favour 
of  his  favourite  measure  of  war. 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted,  that  for  the  honour  of  the 
country,  and  the  character  of  the  government,  this  whole 
proceeding  was  ever  suffered  to  see  the  light.  It  ought  to 
have  occurred  in  secret  session,  and  been  buried  in  deep 
oblivion.  Unfortunately  it  was  found  expedient  to  publish 
the  documents  to  the  world  ;  and  they  must  of  course  for- 
ever remain  as  evidence  of  the  unworthy  spirit  by  which 
the  government  was  actuated  on  that  memorable  occasion. 
It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that  it  was  well  de- 
signed to  increase  the  animosity  of  the  country  against  the 
British  government,  and  to  have  some  influence  in  recon- 
ciling the  country  to  the  idea  of  a  war  with  that  nation. 

But  after  such  an  insidious  attempt  to  vilify  and  traduce 
the  inhabitants  of  New  England,  it  can  scarcely  be  a  mat- 


212  HISTORY    OF   THE 

ter  of  surprise,  that  when  these  same  New  England  men 
were  called  upon  to  advance  money,  for  the  purpose  of  ena- 
bling the  government  to  prosecute  the  war  which  they  had 
thus  unnecessarily  and  rashly  undertaken,  they  should 
withhold  their  aid.  If  any  thing  further  was  necessary  to 
induce  them  to  pursue  such  a  course,  beyond  a  conscien- 
tious conviction  that  the  war  was  unjustiiiable,  the  treat- 
ment they  had  received  from  the  government  in  this  foul 
attempt,  founded  on  the  testimony  of  an  unprincipled  and 
daring  foreign  swindler,  to  blast  their  reputations,  and  ren- 
der them  odious  to  their  country  and  the  world,  this  trans- 
action was  sufficient  to  confirm  them  in  that  course. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  war  of  1812.  In  order  that 
its  character  may  be  fully  understood,  and  duly  appre- 
ciated, a  review  of  the  policy  and  measures  of  the  govern- 
ment, which  finally  terminated  in  that  measure,  has  been 
exhibited. 

The  first  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  that  review  is, 
that  the  real  object  in  view  in  engaging  in  hostilities  with 
Great  Britain,  at  the  precise  time  when  tho^e  hostilities 
commenced,  was  not  specified  in  the  manifesto  published 
by  the  American  government.  The  grounds  for  declaring 
war,  as  stated  in  that  document,  w^ere  twofold — the  edicts 
of  Great  Britain  lohich  violated  our  neutral  rights — and  im- 
pressment. The  orders  in  council,  which  were  the  subjects 
of  such  loud  complaints  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
were  dated  in  January  and  November,  1S07.  The  war 
was  declared  in  June,  1812 — four  years  and  a  half  after 
the  date  of  the  latest  of  those  edicts.  The  order  of  Janu- 
ary was  avowedly  adopted  by  the  British  government,  as  a 
measure  of  retaliation  for  the  French  decree  of  the  pre- 
ceding November,  called  the  Berlin  decree ;  and  the  order 
of  November  was  issued  professedly  in  retaliation  for  the 
French  decree  of  Milan.  In  May,  1806,  the  British  order 
for  blockading  the  coast  from  the  river  Elbe  to  Brest  was 
adopted.      The  French  government    declared   that   the 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  213 

Berlin  decree  was  issued  as  a  measure  of  retaliation  for 
the  abovernentioned  blockading  order.  The  order  of 
May,  1806,  was  issued  during  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Fox,  the  whig  minister,  and  the  great  friend  of  this  coun- 
try. He  declared  to  Mr.  Monroe,  at  that  time  our  minis- 
ter at  the  court  of  London,  that  the  order  was  intended  to 
operate  beneficially,  and  not  injuriously  to  neutrals.  And 
this  view  of  the  measure  was  communicated  to  our  go- 
vernment by  Mr.  Monroe;  and  no  complaint  of  its  injus- 
tice was  made  at  Washington  for  some  years  afterwards. 
The  non-intercourse  law  contained  a  provision  which  au- 
thorised the  President,  in  case  either  France  or  Great  Bri- 
tain should  so  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts,  as  that  Ihey  should 
cease  to  violate  the  neutral  coDimerce  of  the  United  States,  to 
declare  the  same  by  proclamation  ;  after  which  the  trade 
suspended  by  said  act,  and  by  an  act  laying  an  embargo  on 
all  ships  and  vessels  in  the  ports  and  harbours  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  the  several  acts  supplementary  thereto, 
might  be  renewed  with  the  nation  so  doing.  Here  is  the 
ground,  and  the  only  ground  on  which  the  President  was 
empowered  by  that  act  to  adjust  the  existing  difficulties 
with  those  nations,  and  renew  friendly  and  commercial  in- 
tercourse with  them. 

When  the  arrangement  was  made  with  Mr.  Erskine,  in 
April,  1809,  it  was  stipulated  by  him,  on  the  part  of  the 
British  government,  that  in  consequence  of  the  accept- 
ance by  the  President  of  the  proposals  made  by  him  on 
the  part  of  the  King,  for  the  renewal  of  the  intercourse 
between  the  respective  countries,  he  was  authorised  to  de- 
clare that  the  orders  in  council  of  January  and  November, 
1807,  would  be  withdrawn,  as  respected  the  United  States, 
on  the  10th  day  of  June  then  next — that  is  1809.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  assurance  by  the  British  minister,  the 
President,  on  the  I9th  of  April,  1807 — the  day  after  the 
arrangement  was  completed — issued  his  proclamation,  de- 
claring that  those  orders  in  council  would,  on  the  10th  of 


214  HISTORY    OF   THE 

June  following,  have  been  withdrawn,  and  that  the  trade 
of  the  United  States,  which  had  been  suspended  by  the 
non-intercourse  act,  might  after  that  day  be  renewed. 

In  the  correspondence  relative  to  this  arrangement,  not 
a  word  was  said  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  about 
the  blockading  order  of  May,  1806,  nor  was  the  slightest 
allusion  made  to  the  subject  of  impressment.  The  nego- 
tiation throughout  was  confined  entirely  to  the  abovemen- 
tioned  orders  in  council,  they  were  considered  as  the  only 
grounds  on  which  the  intercourse  had  been  suspended  ; 
and  upon  their  removal,  the  way  was  clear  for  its  re-esta- 
blishment. Such  w^as  the  construction  put  upon  the  law 
by  the  President,  when  he  approved  the  principles  of  the 
arrangement,  and  issued  his  proclamation  in  pursuance  of 
the  provisions  of  the  non-intercourse  act. 

On  the  23d  of  May,  1809,  immediately  after  this  ar- 
rangement had  been  concluded,  Congress  were,  in  conse- 
quence of  it,  convened,  and  the  result  of  the  negotiation 
was  communicated  to  both  houses  by  the  President,  in  a 
message  bearing  that  date.  The  following  is  an  extract 
from  that  document. 

"  On  this  first  occasion  of  meeting  you,  it  affords  me 
much  satisfaction  to  be  able  to  communicate  the  com- 
mencement of  a  favourable  change  in  our  foreign  relations  ; 
the  critical  state  of  which  induced  a  session  of  Congress  at 
this  early  period. 

"  In  consequence  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  interdict- 
ing commercial  intercourse  with  Great  Britain  and  France, 
our  ministers  at  London  and  Paris  were,  without  delay, 
instructed  to  let  it  be  understood  by  the  French  and  Bri- 
tish governments,  that  the  authority  vested  in  the  Execu- 
tive, to  renew  commercial  intercourse  with  their  respective 
nations,  would  be  exercised  in  the  case  specified  by  that  act. 

*'Soon  after  these  instructions  were  despatched,  it  was 
found  that  the  British  government,  anticipating,  from 
early  proceedings  of  Congress,  at  their  last  session,  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  215 

State  of  our  laws,  which  has  had  the  effect  of  placing  the 
two  belligerent  powers  on  a  footing  of  equal' restrictions, 
and  relying  on  the  conciliatory  disposition  of  the  United 
States,  had  transmitted  to  their  legation  here,  provisional 
instructions,  not  only  to  offer  satisfaction  for  the  attack  on  the 
frigate  Chesapeake,  and  to  make  known  the  determination 
of  his  Britannick  majesty  to  send  an  envoy  extraordinary 
with  powers  to  conclude  a  treaty  on  all  the  points  between 
the  two  countries,  but,  moreover,  to  signify  his  willingness, 
in  the  meantime,  to  withdraw  his  orders  in  council,  in  the 
persuasion  that  the  intercourse  with  Great  Britain  would 
be  renewed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 

*'  These  steps  of  the  British  government  led  to  the  cor- 
respondence and  the  proclamation  now  laid  before  you ; 
by  virtue  of  which,  the  commerce  between  the  two  coun- 
tries will  be  renewable  after  the  tenth  day  of  June  next." 

"  The  revision  of  our  commercial  laws,  proper  to  adapt 
them  to  the  arrangement  which  has  taken  place  with  Great 
Britain,  will  doubtless  engage  the  early  attention  of  Con- 
gress." 

In  pursuance  of  the  above  suggestion.  Congress  imme- 
diately passed  the  following  act — 

*'  Be  it  enacted,  &c.  That  from  and  after  the  passing 
this  act,  all  ships  or  vessels  owned  by  citizens  or  subjects 
of  any  foreign  nation  with  which  commercial  intercourse 
is  permitted  by  the  act  entitled  *An  act  to  interdict  the 
commercial  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  and  France,  and  their  dependencies,  and 
for  other  purposes,'  be  permitted  to  take  on  board  car- 
goes of  domestic  or  foreign  produce,  and  to  depart  with 
the  same  for  any  port  or  place  with  which  such  intercourse 
is,  or  shall,  at  the  time  of  their  departure,  respectively,  be 
thus  permitted,  in  the  same  manner,  and  on  the  same  con- 
ditions, as  is  provided  by  the  act  aforesaid,  for  vessels 
owned  by  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  any  thing  in  said 
act,  or  in  the  act  laying  an  embargo  on  all  ships  and  ves- 


216  HISTORY    OF   THE 

sels  in  the  ports  and  harbours  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
any  of  the  several  acts  supplementary  thereto,  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding."  This  act  was'approved  May  30th, 
1809. 

An  act  was  also  passed  at  the  same  session,  continuing 
in  force  certain  sections  of  the  non-intercourse  law  until 
the  end  of  the  then  next  session  of  Congress,  with  a  pro- 
viso, that  nothing  therein  contained  should  be  construed  to 
prohibit  any  trade  or  commercial  intercourse  which  had 
been,  or  might  be  permitted  in  conformity  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  eleventh  section  of  the  non-intercourse  act. 
The  eleventh  section  was  that  which  authorised  the  Presi- 
dent to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  edicts  of  the  bellige- 
rent nations,  upon  their  revoking  or  modifying  their  edicts 
so  that  they  should  cease  to  violate  our  neutral  rights. 

Here  then  is  a  solemn  declaration,  in  the  first  place,  by 
the  President,  and  in  the  second,  by  Congress,  that  the 
British  blockading  order  of  May,  1806,  was  not  an  edict 
that  violated  our  neutral  rights  in  April  and  May,  1809, 
and  the  inference  is  equally  strong,  that  at  the  same  time 
impressment  was  not  then  considered  a  justifiable  cause  of  war ^ 
because  it  was  not  alluded  to  either  in  the  arrangement 
with  Mr.  Erskine,  in  the  President's  proclamation  suspend- 
ing the  non-intercourse  law,  or  in  that  law,  or  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Congress,  when  engaged  in  adapting  the  com- 
mercial laws  of  the  United  States  to  that  arrangement. 

Having  seen  that  the  British  blockading  order  of  May, 
1806,  was  not  considered  by  our  government,  in  the  ar- 
rangement with  Mr.  Erskine,  as  one  of  the  edicts  of  that 
nation  which  violated  our  neutral  rights,  but  was  after- 
wards introduced  into  the  manifesto  of  the  government, 
which  laid  the  foundation  of  the  President's  proclamation 
of  war,  it  becomes  an  object  of  importance  to  inquire 
when  that  decree  began  to  be  considered  as  a  justifiable 
ground  of  hostilities.  It  will  be  recollected,  that  in  De- 
cember, 1809,  General  Armstrong  was  instructed  by  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION*  2l7 

President,  to  inquire  of  the  duke  of  Cadore,  on  what  con- 
ditions his  majesty  the  emperor  of  France  would  consent 
to  annul  the  Berlin  decree ;  and  whether,  if  Great  Britain 
revoked  her  blockades,  of  a  date  anterior  to  that  decree, 
his  majesty  would  consent  to  revoke  the  said  decree.  In 
a  letter  from  Mr.  Smith,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Pink- 
ney,  then  our  minister  to  the  British  court,  dated  July  5th, 
1810,  it  is  said — "In  explaining  the  extent  of  the  repeal, 
which,  on  the  British  side,  is  required,  you  will  be  f^uided 
by  the  same  principle.  You  will  accordingly  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly understood,  that  it  must  necessarily  include  an  an- 
nulment of  the  blockade  of  May,  1806,  which  has  been 
avowed  to  be  comprehended  in,  and  identified  with  the  or- 
ders in  council ;  and  which  is  palpably  at  variance  with 
the  law  of  nations.  This  is  the  explanation  which  will  be 
given  to  the  French  government  on  this  point  by  our  mi- 
nister at  Paris,  in  case  it  should  there  be  required." 

The  letter  then  proceeds  to  state  reasons  why  "the  Brit- 
ish government  ought  to  revoke  every  other  blockade  rest- 
ing on  proclamations  or  diplomatic  notifications,  and  not  on 
the  application  of  a  naval  force  adequate  to  a  real  blockade.'* 
The  second  of  these  reasons  was  the  following — "With- 
out this  enlightened  precaution,  it  is  probable,  and  may  in- 
deed be  inferred  from  the  letter  of  the  duke  of  Cadore  to 
General  Armstrong,  that  the  French  government  will  draw 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  to  issue  on  the  legality 
of  such  hlockades,  hy  acceding  to  the  act  of  Congress,  with  a 
CONDITION,  that  a  repeal  of  the  blockades  shall  accompany  a 
repeal  of  the  orders  in  council,  alleging  that  the  orders  and 
blockades  difl?ering  little,  if  at  all,  otherwise  than  in  name, 
a  repeal  of  the  former,  leaving  in  operation  the  latter,  would 
be  a  mere  illusion."  To  ascertain  the  point  of  time,  then, 
when  the  blockading  order  of  May,  1806,  began  to  assume 
the  importance  which  it  afterwards  acquired,  resort  must 
be  had  to  the  negotiation  between  General  Armstrong,  in 
January,  1810,  on  the  subject  of  revoking  the  Berlin  and 

28 


218  HISTORY   OF   THE 

Milan  decrees,  in  which  the  French  government  were.,  in 
terms  little  short  of  explicit,  invited  to  include  the  order  of 
May,  1806,  in  their  demand  for  the  repeal  of  the  British 
orders  in  council.  And  to  satisfy  every  unprejudiced  mindy 
that  there  was  a  full  and  thorough  understanding  between 
our  government  and  that  of  France  on  this  subject,  the 
passage  from  the  letter  of  Secretary  Smith  to  Mr.  Pink- 
ney,  of  the  5th  of  July,  1810,  distinctly  proves.  "  The 
French  government,"  says  the  letter,  "  will  draw  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  to  issue  on  tlie  legality  of  suck 
blockades,  by  acceding  to  the  act  of  Congress,  with  a  condi- 
tion, that  a  repeal  of  the  blockading  orders  shall  accom- 
pany a  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council."  Here,  it  is  fore- 
told, not  only  that  the  French  government  will  draw  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  to  issue  on  the  legality  of  the 
blockades,  but  the  very  terms  on  which  that  issue  would  be 
made  are  predicted — they  will  accede  to  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, with  a  condition,  that  the  repeal  of  the  blockading 
orders  shall  accompany  the  repeal  of  the  orders  in  counciL 
This  was  precisely  the  course  pursued  by  the  French  go- 
vernment— they  did  attach  a  condition  to  their  nominal 
revocation  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  that  the  block- 
ading orders,  meaning  emphatically  that  of  May,  1806^ 
should  be  withdrawn  also. 

From  that  time  forward,  this  order  made  a  prominent 
figure  in  the  various  correspondence  and  negotiations  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  British  governments. 
The  British  government  refused  to  consider  the  French 
conditional  revocation  of  their  orders,  as  bringing  them- 
selves within  the  terms  of  a  declaration  that  the  British 
government  had  made,  that  they  would  \ivoceQA 2)ari  passu 
with  the  French  government  in  removing  their  edicts 
which  interfered  with  the  rights  of  neutrals  ;  and  insisted 
that  the  blockading  order  of  May,  1806,  did  not  violate 
those  rights.     The  demand  for  the  repeal  of  that  order 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  219 

was,  however,  persisted  in  by  the  United  States,  until  it  was 
terminated  by  the  war. 

When  the  committee  of  foreign  relations  were  engaged 
in  drawing  the  manifesto,  proceeding  as  the  government 
did  upon  false  principles,  they  felt  themselves  under  the 
necessity  of  making  as  large  a  display  of  British  aggres- 
sions as  they  could,  introducing  into  the  catalogue  of  grie- 
vances, a  variety  of  subjects  which  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  causes  of  war.     Those  causes  were  then  reduced  to 
two — the  orders  in  council,  and  impressment.     In  discus- 
sing the  former,  it  was  impossible  for  the  committee  to 
pass  by  the  blockading  order  of  May,  1806,  as  that  had 
been  one  of  the  prime  causes  of  the  crisis  which  the  affairs 
of  the  country  had  reached.     To  assert  in  the  face  of  the 
facts  which  were  publicly  known  to  exist,  and  to  which 
allusion  has  already  been  made,  viz.  that  the  order  w^s 
declared  by  Mr.  Fox-,  the  British  minister,  to  be  intended 
to  benefit  neutrals,  an  opinion  assented  to  by  Mr.  Monroe, 
— that  it  was  not  considered  as  violating  our  neutral  rights 
in  the  negotiation  with  Mr.  Erskine — and  had  not  been 
complained  of  as  such  by  our  government,  until  the  rejec- 
tion of  that  arrangement  by  the  British  government.     It 
certainly  required  some  dexterity  to  work  this  ground  of 
complaint  into  the  form  of  such  a  charge  against  the  Bri- 
tish as  to  make  it  appear  to  the  country,  and  the  civiHzed 
world,  as  a  justifiable  cause  of  war.     The  passage  from 
the  manifesto  of  the  committee  has  been  already  cited.  But 
it  is  expedient  to  advert  to  it  and  to  the  subject  again. 

The  committee  say,  "  In  May,  1806,  the  whole  coast 
of  the  continent,  from  the  Elbe  to  Brest,  inclusive,  was  de- 
clared to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade."  This  they  considered 
as  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  as  no  blockade  is  re- 
cognized by  that  law,  unless  it  is  supported  by  an  adequate 
force.  Such  a  force,  they  contend,  was  not  applied.  But 
to  make  such  a  blockade  a  good  cause  of  war  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  it  must,  in  its  operations,  have  vio- 


220  HISTORY    OF    THE 

lated  specifically  the  neutral  rights  of  our  country.  The 
government  of  the  United  States  could  never  be  justified 
in  going  to  war  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  mere  ab- 
stract principles  ;  nor  would  the  country  ever  have  sup- 
ported such  a  war.  The  non-intercourse  law  was  founded 
entirely  upon  the  principle  that  the  edicts  of  Great  Britain 
and  France  violated  our  neutral  rights.  Pressed  with  this 
view  of  the  subject,  and  conscious  that  the  evidence  of  the 
facts  to  which  allusion  has  been  made  were  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  public,  the  committee  were  constrained  to  say 
they  thought  it  just  "  to  remark  that  this  act  of  the  British 
government  does  not  appear  to  have  been  adopted  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  has  since  been  construed.  On  consideration  of  all 
the  circumstances  attending  the  measure,  and  particularly 
the  character  of  the  distinguished  statesman  who  an- 
nounced it,  we  are  persuaded  that  it  ims  conceived  in  a  spi- 
rit of  conciliation,  and  intended  to  lead  to  an  accommodation 
of  all  differences  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Bri- 
tain. His  death  disappointed  that  hope,  and  the  act  has 
since  become  subservient  to  other  purposes.  It  has  been 
made  by  his  successors  a  pretext  for  that  vast  system  of 
usurpation,  which  has  so  long  oppressed  and  harassed  our 
commerce." 

It  is  very  much  doubted,  whether  the  history  of  modern 
wars  can  produce,  in  all  the  variety  of  manifestoes  which 
they  have  given  rise  to,  such  an  extraordinary  cause  of 
war  as  that  abovementioned.  Here  it  is  acknowledged  by 
the  committee  of  foreign  relations,  that  the  blockading 
order  of  May,  1806,  was  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  concilia- 
tion, and  intended  to  lead  to  an  accommodation  of  all  dif- 
ferences between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  ; 
but  by  the  construction  put  upon  it  by  those  who  succeeded 
Mr.  Fox  in  the  British  ministry,  it  has  been  made  the  pre- 
text for  the  system  of  usu-rpation  which  has  so  long  op- 
pressed and  harassed  American  commerce.  For  nearly 
four  years  after  the  adoption  of  this  measure,  it  was  not, 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  221 

as  far  as  appears,  made  the  subject  of  any  complaint  by 
the  government  of  the  United  States.  The  manner  and 
the  occasion  of  its  being  made  a  ground  of  remonstrance, 
/  ^^ft*  been  stated.  It  was  after  the  rejection  of  the  Erskine 
arrangement,  and  upon  the  commencement  of  negotiations 
with  the  French  government,  respecting  the  revocation  of 
the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  In  no  instance  that  is  re- 
collected, was  it  complained  of  as  having  been  the  cause 
of  positive  mischief  to  American  commerce;  but  the  rea- 
soning was  directed  altogether  to  the  nature  of  the  block- 
ade, and  intended  to  show  that  it  was  not  legitimate,  be- 
cause not  supported  by  an  adequate  force.  On  this  point 
the  governments  were  at  issue,  and  both  appear  to  have 
depended  very  much  upon  assertion — one  affirming,  and 
the  other  denying  the  application  of  such  a  force.  No 
evidence  has  been  discovered,  in  the  examination  of  all 
the  correspondence  upon  the  subject,  that  the  successors  of 
Mr.  Fox  ever  put  a  different  construction  upon  the  mea- 
sure from  that  which  he  confessedly  intended  it  should 
bear.  The  declaration,  therefore,  of  the  committee  of 
foreign  relations,  appears  to  have  been  gratuitous,  and 
without  any  foundation  in  fact.  That  so  important  and 
responsible  an  act  as  that  of  a  declaration  of  war  by  one 
civilized  and  Christian  power  against  another,  should  be 
placed  upon  such  a  false  and  unfounded  basis  as  this,  can 
only  excite  surprise  in  the  mind  of  every  lover  of  truth 
and  justice. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  the  orders  in  council,  which 
formed  one  of  the  avowed  causes  of  the  war,  were  actually 
repealed  by  the  British  government  within  five  days  after 
the  declaration  of  war.  A  very  little  delay  on  the  part  of 
the  American  government  would  have  removed  this 
ground  of  controversy,  and  left  nothing  for  this  country  to 
contend  for  but  freedom  from  impressment.  The  French 
emperor  had  authorized  his  minister  to  declare  to  the 
American  government,  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees 


222  HISTORY    OF   THE 

were  revoked  on  the  1st  of  November,  1810.     Upon  this 
annunciation,  application  v^^as  made  by  our  government  to 
that  of  Great  Britain,  to  follow^  the  example  set  by  France, 
and  repeal  their  orders  in  council.     This  was  refused  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,   on  the  ground  that  the  revoca- 
tion of  the  French  decrees  was  not  absolute,  but  was  con- 
ditional.    This  question  gave  rise  to  repeated  and  labour- 
ed discussions  between  the  two  governments,  the  Ameri- 
can negotiators  maintaining  with  great  zeal  that  the  repeal 
was  absolute,  and  those  of  Great  Britain  contending  with 
equal  pertinacity   that    it   was   conditional.     It  has  been 
shown  by  extracts  from  the  official  correspondence,  that 
after  Mr.  Barlow  had  arrived  at  Paris,  as  envoy  from  the 
United  States,   viz.  in  May,  1812,  he  pressed  the  French 
minister  with  great  earnestness  for  an  absolute  revocation 
of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.     Such  a  revocation,  it 
was  known,  would  remove  the  only  obstacle  to  a  repeal  of 
the  British  orders  in  council.     On  the  1st  of  May,  1812, 
Mr.  Barlow  addressed  a  letter  to  the  duke  of  Bassano,  in 
which,  after  adverting  to  the  fact  that  the  British  govern- 
ment refused  to  repeal  the  orders  in  council,  on  the  ground 
that  the  French  decrees  were  not  revoked  ;  he  says — "  It 
is  much  to  be  desired  that  the  French  government  would 
now  make  and  publish  an  authentic  act,  declaring  the  Ber- 
lin and  Milan  decrees,  as  relative  to  the  United  States,  to 
have  ceased  in   November,   1810."     In  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Monroe,   Secretary  of  State,  dated  3Iay  12th,   1812,  he 
says — "  I  found  from  a  pretty  sharp  conversation  with  the 
duke  of  Bassano,  that  there  was  a  singular  reluctance  to 
answering  my  note  of  the  \st  of  May.     Some  traces  of  that 
reluctance  you  will  perceive  in  the  answer  which  finally 
came,  of  which  a  copy  is  here  enclosed." 

It  is  stated,  that  in  the  course  of  the  conversation  al- 
luded to,  the  duke  produced  a  decree  of  the  emperor,  da- 
ted April  28th,  1811,  more  than  a  year  previously,  declar- 
ing the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  definitively  revoked,  and  to 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  223 

date  from  the  1st  of  November,  1810.  This,  as  might  have 
been  expected,  surprised  the  American  minister,  though  he 
made  no  comment  on  the  fact  of  its  concealment.  Upon 
being  inquired  of  by  Mr.  Barlow,  whether  the  decree  had 
ever  been  published,  he  was  informed  by  the  duke  that 
it  had  not ;  but  was  assured  it  had  been  communicated  to 
Mr.  Barlow'' s  predecessor  at  that  court,  and  had  been  trans- 
mitted to  the  French  minister  in  this  country,  with  orders  to 
have  it  communicated  to  our  government.  Mr.  Barlow 
informed  the  duke,  that  it  was  not  among  the  archives  of 
the  legation;  and  requested  that  he  might  be  furnished 
with  a  copy ;  which  request  was  complied  with. 

Upon  receiving  the  information  of  this  singular  transac- 
tion, the  French  minister  in  this  country  was  applied  to, 
but  he  had  no  knowledge  of  such  a  decree,  until  he  re- 
ceived the  information  from  home,  of  what  had  occurred 
between  Mr.  Barlow  and  the  duke  of  Bassano.     Under 
these  circumstances,  a  call  for  information  was  made  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  upon  the  President  for  in- 
formation, who  referred  the  subject  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  and  whose  report  has  already  been  alluded  to,  as 
far  as  it  related  to  this  subject.     It  fully  confirmed  the 
statement  made  by  Mr.  Barlow,  that  nothing  was  known 
to  the  American  government  respecting  the  existence  of 
such  a  decree,  before  they  received  the  information  of  what 
had  passed  between  the  duke  of  Bassano  and  Mr.  Barlow 
When  the  course  which  our  government  had  pursued  to- 
wards both  the  French  and  the  British,  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration, it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  the  receipt  of  these 
communications  must  have  proved  the  source  of  severe 
mortification  to  them.     The   declaration  of  the  French 
minister,  that  the  decree  of  April  28th,  1811,  had  actually 
been  passed  at  the  time  of  its  date,  no  uninterested  per- 
son will  for  a  moment  believe.     That  it  had  been  commu- 
nicated to  Mr.  Barlow's  predecessor  at  the  court  of  France, 
cannot  be  true ;  and  the  assertion  that  it  had  been  trans- 


224  HISTORY    OF   THE 

mitted  to  the  French  minister,  is  not  to  be  credited.  There 
is  no  room  to  doubt,  that  it  was  a  mere  pretence,  got  up 
for  the  occasion,  and  intended  to  answer  a  particular  pur- 
pose, which  will  be  alluded  to  hereafter. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  report  on  the  subject, 
shows  strong  marks  of  chagrin,  arising  either  from  the 
fact  that  the  matter  had  become  public,  or  at  the  unfound- 
ed declaration  of  the  French  minister,  that  the  decree  had 
been  passed  and  communicated  at  a  period  so  long  ante- 
cedent to  its  actual  promulgation,  in  the  manner  as  is  above 
related.  But  instead  of  manifesting  the  proper  degree  of 
dignity  and  spirit,  which  such  an  attempt  at  imposition  ob- 
viously demanded,  the  Secretary  of  State  enters  upon  a 
long  and  laboured  series  of  reasoning,  to  prove  that  the 
repeal  of  their  orders  in  council  by  the  British  govern- 
ment, was  not  the  result  of  the  final  revocation  of  the 
French  decrees,  but  of  other  causes,  althcngh  "it  was 
made  the  ground  of  their  repeal"  by  that  government. 
If  is  difficult  to  reason  conclusively  against  facts.  The 
British  government  had  uniformly  declared  that  the  French 
decree  of  revocation  of  August,  1810,  to  take  effect  on  the 
1st  of  November,  1810,  was  conditional  only,  and  there- 
fore they  refused  to  repeal  their  orders  in  council.  That 
it  would  be  conditional,  was  declared  a  good  while  before 
it  took  place  by  our  government,  when  they  predicted  that 
France  would  draw  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
to  issue  on  this  subject,  by  revoking  her  decrees  "with  a 
condition,  that  a  repeal  of  the  blockades  should  accompany 
a  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council."  That  it  was  conditional, 
was  proved  by  the  terms  of  the  decree.  But  the  Ameri- 
can government  insisted  that  it  was  a  condition  subsequent, 
and  therefore  formed  no  apology  for  their  refusal  to  pro- 
ceed pari  passu  with  the  French  in  removing  their  edicts. 
Bbt  the  language  of  the  French  decree  of  the  date  of 
April  28th,  1811,  whenever  it  was  passed,  by  necessary 
implication  admits  that  the  decree  of  August,  1810,  was 


HARTFORD    CONVEINTION.  i235 

^ot  such  a  revocation  as  the  British  demanded.  It  is  there 
called  a  definitive  revocation.  A  definite  act  of  this  kind, 
leaves  room  for  a  strong  inference,  that  what  had  pre- 
viously occurred  was  conditional,  or  at  least  not  absolute. 

The  British  government  had  resisted  the  demand  of  the 
American  government,  for  the  repeal  of  the  orders  in  coun- 
cil, from  August,  1810,  to  May,  1812,  on  the  specific  ground 
that  the  French  decree  of  revocation  of  the  former  date 
was  conditional.  But  upon  receiving  official  intelligence 
that  France  had  definitively  revoked  her  decrees,  the  British 
orders  in  council  were  repealed.  To  suppose  that  this  act 
was  produced  by  the  apprehension  that  the  American  go- 
Yernme«t  were  approaching  a  more  serious  and  threaten- 
ing crisis  towards  them,  appears  like  a  mere  attempt  to 
escape  from  an  awkward  and  uncomfortable  dilemma,  into 
which  our  administration  had  plunged  themselves.  A 
anore  just  and  liberal  spirit  than  that  which  adopted  this 
construction,  would  have  ascribed  the  measure  to  soqge 
more  manly  motive  than  that  of  fear.  Great  Britain  had 
braved  too  many  dangers  inconceivably  greater  than  that 
of  a  war  with  the  United  States,  to  have  been  alarmed  by 
the  threat  of  a  war  with  them. 

Impressment  was  the  second,  and  the  only  additional 
cause  of  war,  set  forth  in  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
foreign  relations.  The  practice  of  impressing  American 
seamen,  by  the  British,  had  been  a  ground  of  just  com- 
plaint, almost  from  the  commencement  of  the  French 
revolutionary  wars.  The  strong  resemblance  in  the  cha- 
racter and  language  of  British  and  American  seamen, 
rendered  it  somewhat  difficult  to  discriminate  between 
natives  of  the  two  countries.  And  it  is  not  probable 
that  naval  officers,  in  a  time  of  war,  and  when  hostili- 
ties were  sharpened  by  the  most  active  and  powerful 
passions  that  ever  influence  the  human  mind  or  conduct, 
would  be  very  scrupulous  in  deciding  the  question  of  origin, 
where  the  evidence  must  have  been  in  its  nature  doubtful, 

39 


226  HISTORY    OF   THE 

and  in  its  application  very  difficult.  Nor  in  such  wars  &» 
those  which  raged  so  long,  and  w^ith  such  virulence,  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  France,  during  that  memorable 
period,  is  it  strange  that  less  regard  should  be  had  to  the 
personal  or  political  rights  of  neutrals,  than  the  latter 
would  have  an  unquestionable  right  to  demand.  Both 
these  nations  considered  themselves  as  struggling  for  ex- 
istence ;  and  of  course,  both  acted,  in  a  variety  of  exigen- 
cies, on  the  principle  of  self-preservation.  Under  such 
circumstances,  they  considered  the  law  of  nations  as  an 
object  of  secondary  importance.  A  multitude  of  instances 
mi«fht  be  adduced  in  the  conduct  of  both  nations^  in  which 
a  total  disregard  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  the  rights  of 
neutrals,  was  manifested.  As  soon  as  the  evils  of  impress- 
ment were  seriously  felt  by  American  seamen,  complaints 
and  remonstrances  from  time  to  time  were  forwarded  to 
both  governments,  and  efforts  to  open  negotiations  were 
made,  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  the  difficulty  by  treaty  f 
blit  all  without  effect. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  the  treaty  agreed  upon  with 
(Grreat  Britain,  in  1806,  by  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney, 
was  rejected  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  without  ever  consulting  the 
Senate,  professedly  on  the  ground  that  it  contained  no 
stipulation  against  impressment.  In  the  letter  which 
accompanied  the  treaty,  those  commissioners,  when  giving 
the  reasons  why  they  concluded  to  form  a  treaty  without 
such  a  provision,  remark — "  On  the  9th  instant,  we  re- 
ceived from  the  British  commissioners  the  note  which  they 
"  had  promised  us  in  the  last  interview,  which  we  have 
found  to  correspond  in  all  respects  with  what  we  had  been 
taught  to  expect."—'*  When  we  take  into  view  all  that  has 
passed  on  this  subject,  we  are  far  from  considering  the  note 
of  the  British  commissioners  as  a  mere  circumstance  of 
form.  We  persuade  ourselves  that  by  accepting  the  invi- 
tation which  it  gives,  and  proceeding  in  the  negotiation, 
we  sjiall  place  the  business  almost,  if  not  altogether,  on  as 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  227 

good  a  footing  as  we  should  have  done  by  treaty,  had  the 
project  which  we  offered  them  been  adopted." 

Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  letter  of  February,  1808,  written 
after  his  return  to  this  country,  says — "  I  have  always  be- 
lieved, and  still  do  believe,  that  the  ground  on  which  that 
interest  was  placed  by  the  paper  of  the  British  commis- 
sioners of  November  8,  1806,  and  the  explanations  which 
accompanied  it,  was  both  honourable  and  advantageous  to 
the  United  States ;  that  it  contained  a  concession  in  their 
favour,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  great  principle 
in  contestation,  never  before  made  by  a  formal  and  obliga- 
tory act  of  the  government,  which  was  highly  favourable 
to  their  interest ;  and  that  it  also  imposed  on  her  the  obli- 
gation to  conform  her  practice  under  it,  till  a  more  com- 
plete arrangement  should  be  concluded,  to  the  just  claims 
of  the  United  States." 

"  By  this  paper  it  is  evident  that  the  rights  of  the  United 
States  were  expressly  to  be  reserved  ;  and  not  abandoned, 
as  has  been  most  erroneously  supposed ;  that  the  nego- 
tiation on  the  subject  of  impressment  was  to  be  postponed 
for  a  limited  time,  and  for  a  special  object  only,  and  to  be 
revived  as  soon  as  that  object  was  accomplished  ;  and  in 
the  interim,  that  the  practice  of  impressment  was  to  cor- 
respond essentially  with  the  views  and  interests  of  the 
United  States." 

By  the  rejection  of  this  treaty,  this  difficult  and  irri- 
tating subject  was  left  open  to  all  the  abuses  to  which  it 
was  unfortunately  liable.  The  consequence  was,  that  com- 
plaints of  impressment  continued,  until  the  subject  became 
the  ground  of  open  war  with  Great  Britain.  Indeed,  within 
a  few  days  after  the  declaration  of  war,  it  became,  by  the 
repeal  of  the  orders  in  council,  the  only  existing  cause  of 
war.  That  war,  in  the  course  of  two  years  and  a  half, 
cost  the  United  States  from  thirty  to  fifty  thousand  lives, 
and  more  than  a  hundred  millions  of  dollars  ;  and  when 
peace  was  determined  upon,  a  treaty  was  made,  and  rati- 


228  HISTORY    OF   THE 

fied,  not  only  without  any  provision  against  impressmenfy 
but  without  its  containing  the  slightest  allusion  to  that 
subject.  The  treaty  of  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  was 
accompanied  by  the  note,  or  paper,  above  referred  to,  in 
which  the  British  commissioners  made  the  declarations 
already  cited,  and  agreed  to  postpone  the  subject  of  im- 
pressment for  a  limited  time,  after  which  it  was  to  be 
revived.  It  is  remarkable,  that  in  the  last  letter  of  in- 
structions but  one  to  the  American  commissioners  who 
negotiated  the  treaty  of  peace  in  1814,  they  were  expressly 
instructed,  if  the  British  commissioners  would  not  agree  to 
a  provision  against  it  in  the  treaty,  to  stipulate  that  it 
should  be  postponed  to  a  future  opportunity ;  thus  bringing 
our  government  back,  after  all  its  correspondence,  and  its 
multiplied  attempts  at  negotiation,  its  complaints,  remon- 
strances, and  threats,  and  its  immense  expense  of  blood 
and  treasure,  to  the  precise  position  in  which  they  stood 
when  Mr.  Jefferson  rejected  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pink- 
ney's  treaty  in  1808.  But  that  position  was  far  more 
humiliating  to  the  United  States,  than  the  ground  they 
held  at  the  period  just  mentioned.  War  had  been  waged 
to  obtain  security  against  impressment,  and  they  had  been 
reduced  to  the  necessity,  after  a  controversy  of  two  years 
and  a  half  duration  for  that  sole  object,  to  make  a  peace 
without  obtaining  the  smallest  degree  of  that  security. 

This  review  of  the  policy  and  measures  of  the  United 
States  government,  during  the  administrations  of  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson and  Mr.  Madison,  has  been  undertaken  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  the  principal  proposition  advanced  in 
the  early  part  of  this  work,  viz.  That  an  ardent  and  over- 
weening attachment  to  revolutionary  France^  and  an  impla- 
cable enmity  to  Great  Britain,  were  the  governing  princi- 
ples of  those  two  distinguished  individuals.  That  their  con- 
duct at  the  head  of  the  government  was  influenced  and 
icontrolled  by  feelings  of  this  description,  will  be  admitted 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  229 

by  all  who  consider  the  evidence  adduced  as  sufficient  to 
prove  the  truth  of  the  pro})osition. 

In  the  case  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  his  own  declarations  con- 
tained in  his  posthumous  works,  have  been  cited  in  sup- 
port of  the  proposition.  The  evidence  itself  cannot  be 
contradicted  or  impeached.  Whether  it  proves  the  point 
or  not,  the  reader  will  determine  for  himself,  upon  care- 
fully examining  its  weight  and  import.  But  much  addi- 
ional  proof  is  to  be  found  in  the  public  state  papers  of  his 
administration.  His  report  to  Congress,  just  before  he 
resigned  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  in  1793,  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  commercial  resolutions,  introduced  to 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  by  Mr. 
Madison,  then  a  member  of  that  body,  and  afterwards  his 
successor  to  the  chief  magistracy  of  the  Union.  Those 
resolutions  were  avowedly  designed  to  detach  the  United 
States  from  their  commercial  relations  with  Great  Britain, 
and  transfer  their  foreign  trade  to  France. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  show,  by  an  appeal  to 
historical  evidence,  that  it  was  a  part  of  Mr.  Jefferson's 
policy,  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  public  feeling,  and 
directing  public  opinion,  to  retain  at  all  times  some  matter 
of  dispute  or  controversy  with  Great  Britain  on  hand, 
which  might  keep  the  feelings  of  the  government  and  peo- 
ple of  both  countries  in  a  state  of  fretfulness  and  irritation. 
When  the  treaty  of  1794  was  negotiated  by  Mr.  Jay,  Mr. 
Jefferson,  though  out  of  office,  was  decidedly  opposed  to 
its  ratification.  And  when  he  found  it  had  received  the 
approbation  of  the  Senate,  and  the  final  sanction  of  the 
Executive,  he  wished  its  execution  might  be  defeated  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  though  such  a  result  would 
most  obviously  have  involved  the  exercise  of  an  unconsti- 
tutional power. 

That  treaty  expired  soon  after  he  came  into  the  admi 
nistration  of  the  government ;  but  though  the  British  go- 
vernment repeatedly  offered  to  renew  it,  he  instructed  his 


230  HISTORY    OF   THE 

minister  at  that  court  to  decline  the  offer ;  thus  choosing 
to  leave  the  important  subject  of  the  trade  to  the  British 
colonies  open,  and  exposed  to  all  the  bickering  and  con- 
troversy which  must  naturally  grow  out  of  such  an  unset- 
tled state  of  things. 

The  Convention  for  establishing  the  boundary  line  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  British  territories  adjoin- 
ing them,  which  was  negotiated  and  concluded  by  Mr. 
King,  in  the  year  1803,  was  not  ratified,  leaving  unsettled 
a  dispute  which  has  never  been  adjusted  to  this  day. 

In  1S07,  Mr.  Rose  was  sent  by  the  British  government 
to  this  country,  to  make  reparation  for  the  injury  we  had 
received  by  the  attack  on  the  frigate  Chesapeake  ;  his  in- 
structions confined  his  negotiations  to  that  subject  alone, 
and  this  was  well  known  to  our  government ;  but  when,  after 
a  fruitless  attempt  to  induce  him  to  transcend  his  powers, 
by  discussing  other  subjects  of  dispute,  the  negotiation 
was  broken  off,  and  the  controversy  left  unadjusted. 

When  Mr.  Jackson  came  as  envoy  from  Great  Britain, 
our  cabinet  very  soon  satisfied  themselves  that  he  was  too 
experienced  and  adroit  a  diplomatist  to  be  overreached  or 
circumvented,  and  they  accused  him  of  insulting  our  go- 
vernment, and  he  was  dismissed,  though  authorized  to 
adjust  the  affair  of  the  frigate  Chesapeake. 

In  1811,  four  years  after  that  affair  had  happened,  the 
offer  to  renew  the  negotiations  on  that  subject  was  made  ; 
and  finally,  though  with  a  very  ill  grace,  and  in  a  very  un- 
dignified manner,  our  government  accepted  the  same  terms 
of  reparation  which  they  might  have  received  from  Mr. 
Rose  if  they  had  not  broken  off  the  negotiation  with  him. 
It  is  believed  that  this  is  the  only  controversy  of  any  mo- 
ment that  was  ever  settled  with  Great  Britain  during  the 
administrations  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Madison. 

In  December,  1807,  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  con- 
cluded a  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  on  all  the  points  in 
dispute  between  the  countries,  except  that  of  impressment, 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  231 

and  an  informal  understanding  was  agreed  to  on  that  sub- 
ject. This  treaty  was  rejected,  without  even  submitting  it 
to  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  ;  thereby  throwing  open 
for  controversy  all  the  questions  between  the  governments, 
pi'ofessedly  because  one  was  left  unadjusted  ; — and  that 
one  remains  unadjusted  to  this  day. 

The  arrangement  with  Mr.  Erskine  was  made  under 
circumstances  which  furnish  room  for  very  strong  suspi- 
cions, at  least,  that  its  ratification  by  Great  Britain  was 
not  expected  by  our  government.  If  our  government  were 
not  acquainted  with  the  nature  and  extent  of  Mr.  Erskine's 
instructions,  they  were  chargeable  with  gross  negligence 
of  duty  in  not  previously  obtaining  the  necessary  informa- 
tion. If  they  were  acquainted  with  them,  they  are  justly 
liable  to  a  charge  of  a  much  more  heinous  character. 

The  **  restrictive  system,"  as  it  was  called — that  is,  the 
system  of  embargo  and  non-intercourse — was  obviously 
adopted  in  pursuance  of  the  general  policy  of  Bonaparte, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  furthering  his  views  of  hostility 
against  Great  Britain,  [t  was  necessarily  calculated  to 
injure  the  trade  of  Great  Britain,  without  materially  af- 
fecting that  of  France,  as  the  latter  was  scarcely  able  to 
keep  even  a  merchant  vessel  afloat  on  the  ocean.  The 
evidence  in  support  of  this  general  allegation  against  our 
government,  is  derived  from  many  sources,  but  most  spe- 
cifically from  Mr.  Jefferson's  letter  to  Mr.  Livingston, 
which  has  been  quoted. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  extend  this  recapitulation  some- 
what further — 

Upon  the  failure  of  Erskine's  arrangement,  our  govern- 
ment, as  has  been  seen,  immediately  turned  their  attention 
towards  the  adjustment  of  their  difficulties  with  France. 
By  a  series  of  servile  and  humiliating  conduct  towards 
the  haughty  and  imperious  ruler  of  that  nation,  they  be- 
came involved  in  his  unprincipled  policy,  and  were  sub- 
jected to  his  influence  and  controul.     This  is  abundantly 


232  HISTORY    OF    THE 

proved  by  the  public  documents  which  have  been  cited. 
In  the  year  1811,  when  it  was  well  known  that  Bonaparte 
was  making  preparations  upon  the  most  extensive  scale  to 
invade  the  Russian  dominions,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing 
the  emperor  Alexander  to  submit  to  such  terms  as  the  for- 
mer should  prescribe,  or  to  hurl  him  from  his  throne,  the 
measures  of  our  government  began  to  assume  a  warlike 
appearance ;  and  advancing  step  by  step,  with  the  lapse  of 
time  and  the  progress  of  events,  nearly  at  the  same  mo- 
ment when  the  French  army  commenced  its  march  for  the 
north,  the  United  States  declared  war  against  Great  Bri- 
tain. That  the  course  pursued  by  our  government  was 
intended  to  operate  as  a  diversion  in  favour  of  France,  by 
dividing  the  British  forces,  and  in  some  measure  distract- 
ing the  attention  of  their  government  from  the  great  thea- 
tre of  war  in  Europe,  is  too  apparent  to  be  questioned  by 
any  person  possessed  of  a  frank  and  independent  mind. 
It  might  have  been  considered  as  a  good  political  manceu- 
vre,  had  it  been  certain  that  Bonaparte  would  succeed  in 
his  enterprise.  But  he  failed ;  and  the  consequences  w^ere 
soon  seen  in  the  change  of  tone  assumed  by  our  govern 
ment.  It  is  true,  they  endeavoured  to  hold  out  to  the 
country  the  appearance  of  courage  and  confidence  concern- 
ing the  result  of  the  war;  but  the  secret  history  of  the 
times  shows  that  they  were  greatly  alarmed  at  their  situ- 
ation, surrounded  as  it  was  with  difficulties  and  dangers, 
and  their  conduct  was  obviously  influenced  less  by  courage 
than  it  was  by  despair ;  and  hence  alone  can  it  be  account- 
ed for,  that  they  so  suddenly  and  so  essentially  changed 
their  tone  in  the  instructions  given  to  their  commissioners, 
who  were  endeavouring  to  negotiate  for  peace,  and  in- 
structed them  to  give  up  all  that  the  war  was  professedly 
made  for,  and  to  take  up  with  a  simple  peace,  if  that  could 
be  obtained. 

Coupled  with  these  remarks,  by  way  of  recapitulation, 
the  attempt  to  excite  the  angry  passions  and  resentments 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION. 

of  the  country,  by  the  disclosure  of  the  affair  of  John 
Henry,  should  not  be  lost  sight  of.  It  vyas,  indeed,  a  mere 
episode  in  the  principal  work,  having  no  connection  with 
the  grievances  of  which  our  government  complained,  and 
was  not  even  named  in  the  government  manifesto  as  one 
of  the  causes  of  war.  It  was,  however,  eagerly  seized 
hold  of  by  the  administration  as  a  part  of  the  machinery 
which  was  used  for  the  purpose  of  producing  an  effect  up- 
on the  public  mind — for  that  purpose  it  was  set  in  motion, 
and  after  suffering  themselves  to  be  grossly  duped  and 
swindled  by  a  couple  of  sharpers  out  of  fifty  thousand  dol- 
lars, the  whole  plot,  and  its  actors,  were  suffered  to  die 
away,  and  be  forgotten ;  or  remembered  only  to  excite 
feelings  of  contempt  and  disgust  for  the  policy  and  objects 
of  those  by  whom  the  farce  was  prepared  for  public  exhi- 
bition.   , 

Such  is  a  brief  history  of  the  origin  and  causes  of  the  war 
of  1812.  The  evidence  on  which  it  rests  is  derived  from 
the  public  documents  of  the  government^^from  state  pa- 
pers published  by  their  authority,  and  from  other  sources 
equally  creditable.  Its  authenticity,  therefore,  cannot  be 
doubted  ;  and  the  only  question  that  can  be  raised  is,  whe- 
ther it  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  point  for  which  it  is  ad- 
duced. On  this  subject,  if  the  author  is  not  greatly  de- 
ceived, there  will  be  little  room  for  dispute.  The  chain  of 
evidence  is,  in  his  opinion,  entire,  its  credit  unimpeachable, 
and  its  force  irresistible. 

The  next  object  to  which  the  attention  of  the  reader 
will  be  turned  is  the  manner  hi  which  the  operations  of  the 
war  were  conducted. 

On  the  10th  of  April,  1812,  a  little  more  than  two 
months  before  the  formal  declaration  of  war,  but  after  it 
was  perfectly  obvious  that  such  a  measure  was  determined 
upon.  Congress  passed  an  act,  of  which  the  following  are 
extracts — 

"I.    Be  it   enacted,    ^c.    That   the  President  of  the 

30 


234  HISTORY    OF   THE 

United  States  be,  and  he  is  hereby  authorised  to  require  of 
the  executives  of  the  several  states  and  territories,  to  take 
effectual  measures  to  organize,  arm,  and  equip,  according 
to  law,  and  hold  in  readiness  to  march  at  a  moment's 
warning,  their  respective  proportions  of  one  hundred  thou- 
sand militia,  officers  included,  to  be  apportioned  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  from  the  latest  militia  re- 
turns in  the  department  of  war  ;  and,  in  cases  where  such 
returns  have  not  been  made,  by  such  other  data  as  he  shall 
judge  equitable. 

"  II.  That  the  department  of  militia  UxCresaid  shall  be 
officered  out  of  the  present  militia  officers,  or  others,  at  the 
option  and  discretion  of  the  constitutional  authority  in  the 
respective  states  and  territories ;  the  President  of  the 
United  States  apportioning  the  general  officers  among  the 
respective  states  and  territories,  as  he  may  deem  proper. 

'*  IV.  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and 
he  hereby  is,  authorized  to  call  into  actual  service  any  part, 
or  the  whole,  of  said  detachment,  in  all  the  exigencies 
provided  by  the  constitution." 

On  the  15th  of  April,  1812,  the  Secretary  of  War  wrote 
to  the  Governor  of  Connecticut,  and  it  is  to  be  presumed 
to  the  governors  of  the  other  states,  as  follows — 

"  War  Department,  Ibth  April,  1812. 

"HIS  EXCELLENCY  THE  GOVERNOR  OF  THE  STATE  OF 
CONNECTICUT. 

**  Sir — I  am  instructed  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  to  call  upon  the  executives  of  the  several  states  to 
take  effectual  measures  to  organize,  arm  and  equip  ac- 
cording to  law,  and  hold  in  readiness  to  march  at  a  mo- 
ment's warning,  their  respective  proportions  of  one  hun- 
dred thousand  militia,  officers  included,  by  viftue  of  an  act 
of  Congress,  passed  the  10th  inst.  entitled,  *  an  act  to 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  235 

authorize  a  detachment  from  the  militia  of  the  United 
States.'  " 

"  This  therefore  is  to  require  your  excellency  to  take 
effectual  measures  for  having  three  thousand  of  the  mili- 
tia of  Connecticut  (being  her  quota)  detached  and  duly 
organized  in  companies,  battalions,  regiments,  brigades 
and  divisions,  within  the  shortest  period  that  circumstances 
will  permit,  and  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  following  pro- 
portions of  artillery,  cavalry  and  infantry,  viz.  one  twen- 
tieth part  of  artillery ;  one  twentieth  part  of  cavalry  ;  and 
the  residue  infantry.  There  will,  however,  be  no  objection 
on  the  part  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  ad- 
mission of  a  proportion  of  riflemen,  duly  organized  in  a  dis- 
tinct corps,  and  not  exceeding  one  tenth  part  of  the  whole 
quota  of  the  states  respectively.  Each  corps  shall  be  pro- 
perly armed  and  equipped  for  actual  service. 

**  When  the  detachment  and  organization  shall  have 
been  effected,  the  respective  corps  will  be  exercised  under 
the  officers  set  over  them  ;  but  will  not  remain  embodied, 
or  be  considered  as  in  actual  service,  until  by  subsequent 
orders  they  shall  be  directed  to  take  the  field. 

"Your  excellency  will  please  to  direct  that  correct 
muster  rolls  and  inspection  returns  be  made  of  the  several 
corps,  and  that  copies  thereof  be  transmitted  to  this  depart- 
ment as  early  as  possible. 

*'  I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

"  Sir,  very  respectfully, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"  William  Eustis." 

Immediately  after  the  declaration  of  war  was  passed, 
the  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  who  were  in  the  minority  on  that  question, 
published  an  address  on  that  subject  to  their  constituents. 
In  that  document,  which  is  drawn  up  with  much  force  of 
reasoning  and  talent,  the  following  is  given  as  the  principal 


236  HISTORY   OF   THE 

reason  for  adopting  that  njode  of  communicating  their  sen- 
timents to  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed — 

"  The  momentous  question  of  war  with  Great  Britain  is 
decided.  On  this  topic,  so  vital  to  your  interests,  the  right 
of  public  debate,  in  the  face  of  the  world,  and  especially  of 
their  constituents,  has  been  denied  tq  your  representatives. 
They  have  been  called  into  secret  session  on  this  most  in- 
teresting of  all  jour  public  relations,  although  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time  and  of  the  nation  afforded  no  one 
reason  for  secrecy,  unless  it  be  found  in  the  apprehension 
of  the  effect  of  public  debate  on  public  opinion  ;  or  of 
public  opinion  on  the  result  of  the  vote. 

"  Except  the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  which  is  now  before  the  public,  nothing  confiden- 
tial was  communicated.  That  message  contained  no  fact 
not  previously  known.  No  one  reason  for  war  was  inti- 
mated, but  such  as  was  of  a  nature  public  and  notorious. 
The  intention  to  wage  war  and  invade  Canada,  had  been 
long  since  openly  avowed.  The  object  of  hostile  menace 
had  been  ostentatiously  announced.  The  inadequacy  of 
both  our  army  and  navy  for  successful  invasion,  and  the 
insufficiency  of  the  fortifications  for  the  security  of  our  sea- 
board, were  every  where  known.  Yet  the  doors  of  Con- 
gress were  shut  upon  the  people.  They  have  been  care- 
fully kept  in  ignorance  of  the  progress  of  measures,  until 
the  purposes  of  the  administration  were  consummated,  and 
the  fate  of  the  country  sealed.  In  a  situation  so  extraor- 
dinary, the  undersigned  have  deemed  it  their  duty  by  no 
act  of  theirs  to  sanction  a  proceeding  so  novel  and  arbi- 
trary. On  the  contrary,  they  made  every  attempt,  in 
their  power,  to  attain  publicity  for  their  proceedings.  All 
such  attempts  were  vain.  When  this  momentous  subject 
was  stated,  as  for  debate,  they  demanded  that  the  doors 
should  be  opened. 

*'  TThis  being  refused,  they  declined  discussion  ;  being 
p^rfi^ptly  convinced,  from  indications  too  plain  tp  be  uiis- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  237 

understood,  that  in  the  house,  all  argument  with  closed 
doors  was  hopeless  ;  and  that  any  act  giving  implied  vali- 
dity to  so  flagrant  an  abuse  of  power,  would  be  little  less 
than  treachery  to  the  essential  rights  of  a  free  people." 

The  allusion  to  the  unprepared  condition  of  the  country 
and  government  for  a  war,  and  especially  with  Great  Bri- 
tain, in  the  abovementioned  address,  was  perfectly  well 
founded.  Great  Britain,  at  that  time,  had  absolute  domi- 
nion over  the  ocean.  No  other  power  in  Europe  was  in  a 
situation  to  annoy  our  commerce  or  invade  our  country. 
We  had  a  sea-coast  of  about  two  thousand  miles  extent, 
exposed  to  hostile  visits,  and  of  course  to  depredations, 
from  a  maritime  enemy;  our  principal  sea-ports  and  har- 
bours were  in  a  great  measure  unprotected ;  we  had  a 
small  standing  army,  scattered  in  many  directions,  and 
over  a  vast  extent  of  country,  and  of  course  incapable  of 
being  brought  to  act  with  efficiency  upon  any  specific  point, 
and  a  small  navy;  we  were  to  a  great  degree  unprovided 
with  the  ordinary  materials  of  offensive  war,  and  particu- 
larly with  the  indispensable  ingredient  of  money.  No  part 
of  the  country  was  more  open  and  exposed  to  the  visits  and 
depredations  of  an  enemy,  than  the  territory  bordering 
upon  the  New  England  coast.  The  fortifications  were 
hardly  entitled  to  the  name;  and  the  garrisons  employed 
in  them  were  merely  nominal,  and  so  few  in  numbers,  as 
to  be  incapable  of  resisting  any  serious  attack  from  a  well 
disciplined  and  well  provided  enemy.  In  such  a  state  of 
things,  letters  of  the  following  import  were  addressed  by 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  governors  of  Massachqsetts 
and  Connecticut— — 

**  War  Department,  June  12,  1812. 

*'  Sir — I  am  directed  by  the  President  to  request  your 
excellency  to  order  into  the  service  of  the  TJnited  States, 
on  the  requisition  of  Major  General  Pe^rborn,  such  par|; 


238  HISTORY    OF   THE 

of  the  quota  of  militia  from  the  state  of  Massachusetts, 
detached  conformably  to  the  act  of  April  10,  1812,  as  he 
may  deem  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the  sea-coast. 
"  With  great  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be 
"Your  excellency's  obedient  servant, 

"  W.  EUSTIS." 

To  the  foregoing  letter,  Governor  Griswold  of  Con- 
necticut returned  the  following  ansvs^er — 

•*  Lyme,  11th  June,  1812. 

"THE  HONOURABLE  THE  SECRETARY  OF  WAR. 

**  Sir — I  had  the  honour,  this  afternoon,  to  receive  your 
letter  of  the  12th  instant,  communicating  to  me  the  re- 
quest of  the  President,  that  I  would  order  into  the  service 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  requisition  of  Major  General 
Dearborn,  such  part  of  the  quota  of  militia  from  the  state 
of  Connecticut,  detached  conformably  to  the  act  of  Con- 
gress of  April  10th,  1812,  as  he  may  deem  necessary  for 
the  defence  of  the  sea-coast. 

"In  obedience  to  which  request,  I  shall,  on  the  requisi- 
tion of  General  Dearborn,  execute  without  delay  the 
request  of  the  President. 

"  With  great  respect,  I  have  the  honour  to  be 
"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"Roger  Griswold." 

On  the  22d  of  June,  General  Dearborn  addressed  the 
following  letter  to  Governor  Strong  of  Massachusetts — 

"  Head  (Quarters,  Boston,  June  22d,  1812. 

"TO  HIS  EXCELLENCY  CALEB  STRONG. 

"  Sir — I  have  received  instructions  from  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  to  call  on  your  Excellency  for  such 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  239 

part  of  the  quota  of  the  militia  of  Massachusetts,  which 
was  detached  conformably  to  the  act  of  Congress  of  April 
10,  1812,  as  I  may  deem  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the 
sea-coast  :  and  I  have  now  the  honour  of  requesting  your 
Excellency  to  order  fourteen  companies  of  artillery,  and 
twenty-seven  companies  of  infantry  into  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  for  the  defence  of  the  ports  and  harbours  of 
this  state,  and  the  harbour  of  Newport  in  the  state  of  Rhode- 
Island.     The  companies  are  intended   for  the  following 
ports  and  harbours  in  the  following  proportions.    For  Pas- 
samaquoddy  one  company  of  artillery  and  two  companies 
of  infantry,  to  be  commanded  by  a  major.     For  Machias 
one  company  of  artillery.     For  Castine  one   company  of 
artillery  and  two  companies  of  infantry,  to  be  commanded 
by  a  major.     For  Damariscotta  and  Wiscasset  two  com- 
panies of  artillery.     For  Kennebunk  one  company  of  ar- 
tillery.    For  Portland  two  companies  of  artillery  and  two 
companies  of  infantry,  to  be  commanded  by  a  major.     For 
Marblehead,  Salem,  Cape  Ann,   and  Newburyport,  two 
companies   of  artillery    and  two  companies  of  infantry. 
For  Boston,  four  companies  of  artillery  and  eight  compa- 
nies of  infantry,  with  a  lieutenant-colonel  and  one  major. 
For  the  defence  of  Rhode-Island  eight  companies  of  infan- 
try, with  a  lieutenant-colonel  and  one  major. 

'*  Having  received  official  information  that  war  has  been 
declared  by  Congress  against  Great  Britain,  your  Excel- 
lency will  perceive  the  expediency  of  giving  facility  to 
such  measures  of  defence  as  the  crisis  demands  ;  and  as  the 
defence  of  the  sea-coast  of  New-England  is  by  the  general 
government  confided  to  my  direction,  I  shall  with  confi- 
dence rely  on  all  the  aid  and  support  that  the  respective 
governors  of  the  New-England  states  can  afford  ;  and  in  a 
special  manner  on  that  of  the  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
important  state  of  Massachusetts.  And  I  shall  at  all  times 
receive  with  the  greatest  pleasure  and  readiness  any  ad- 


S40  HISTORY   OF   THE 

vice  or  information  that  your  Excellency  may  be  pleased  to 
communicate. 

"  With  respectful  consideration,  I  am,  &:c. 

*'  H.  Dearborn." 

The  following  letter  of  the  same  date,  was  addressed  to 
Governor  Griswold  of  Connecticut — 

"  Head  (^uarters^  Boston^  June  22,  1812. 

**  TO    HIS    EXCELLENCY    ROGER    GRISWOLD. 

**  Sir — Having  received  instructions  from  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  to  call  on  your  excellency  for  such 
part  of  the  quota  of  the  miHtia,  which  was  detached  from  the 
state  of  Connecticut,  conformably  to  the  act  of  Congress, 
of  April  the  10th,  1812,  as  I  may  deem  necessary  for  the 
defence  of  the  sea-coast ;  I  have  now  the  honor  of  request- 
ing your  Excellency  to  order  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  two  companies  of  artillery,  and  two  companies  of 
infantry,  to  he  placed  under  the  command  of  the  commanding 
officer  at  Fort  Trumbull,  near  New-London  ;  and  one  com- 
pany of  artillery,  to  be  stationed  at  the  battery,  at  the  en- 
trance of  the  harbour  of  New-Haven.  Having  received 
official  information  that  war  has  been  declared  by  Congress 
against  Great  Britain,  I  shall  rely  with  confidence  on  the 
aid  and  support  of  your  Excellency,  in  giving  effect  to 
measures  of  defence  on  the  sea-coast,  which  has  been  con- 
fided to  my  direction  by  the  general  government;  and  I 
shall,  at  any  time,  receive  with  the  greatest  pleasure  and 
readiness,  any  advice  or  information  you  may  please  to 
communicate. 

**  With  great  respect  I  have  the  honour  to  be, 
**  Your  Excellency's  most  obedient  servant, 

"  H.  Dearborn,  Major-GeneraV 


HARTFORD    COiVVENTION.  241 

By  the  letter  to  the  governor  of  Massachusetts,  a  requi- 
sition was  made  for  forty-one  companies — fourteen  of  ar- 
tillery, and  twenty-seven  of  infantry.  They  were  ordered 
to  different  places,  in  that  state,  and  in  Rhode-Island. 
Two  lieutenant-colonels  were  called  for  from  the  militia ; 
but  no  officer  of  a  higher  grade.  The  order  to  the  gover- 
nor of  Connecticut  was  for  five  companies — two  of  artille- 
ry and  three  of  infantry,  but  no  officers  of  any  description 
were  included  in  the  call.  On  the  contrary,  four  of  the 
companies  were  expressly  directed  "  to  be  placed  under 
the  command  of  the  commanding  officer  at  Fort  Trumbull, 
near  New-London,"  who  was  an  officer  of  the  United 
States  army,  of  the  rank  of  captain,  and  the  other  at  the 
battery  at  the  entrance  of  New-Haven  harbour,  where 
there  was  a  United  States  officer  stationed. 

The  governor  of  Massachusetts  did  not  consider  the 
call  made  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  through 
General  Dearborn,  as  warranted  by  the  constitution,  and 
thereifore  did  not  detach  the  men  agreeably  to  his  requisi- 
tion. \  The  general  reasons  by  which  he  was  influenced, 
are  contained  in  the  following  extract  from  the  speech  de- 
livered by  him  to  the  legislature  of  the  state,  who  were 
convened  in  October,  1812,  for  the  purpose  of  deliberating 
on  the  events  which  had  recently  occurred — 

/'^  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares,  that 
*  Congress  may  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  exe- 
cute the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and 
repel  invasions,'  and  the  act  of  Congress  of  April  ]Oth, 
1812,  authorising  a  detachment  of  100,000  of  the  militia, 
empowers  the  President  to  '  call  into  actual  service  any 
part,  or  the  whole  of  said  detachment,  in  all  the  exigen- 
cies provided  by  the  constitution.'  From  these  clauses  in 
the  constitution  and  the  law  of  April  10th,  the  President 
derives  his  authority  to  call  the  militia  of  the  states  into 
actual  service ;  and  except  in  the  exigencies  abovemen- 
tioned,  he  can  have  no  authority  by  the  constitution  to  do 

31 


242  HISTORY    OF   THE 

it.  But  there  was  no  suggestion,  either  in  the  letter  fror« 
the  War  Department,  above  referred  to,  or  in  those  from 
General  Dearborn,  that  this  state  or  Rhode-Island  was  in- 
vaded, or  in  imminent  danger  of  invasion  ;  or  that  either 
of  the  exigencies  recognised  by  the  constitutional  laws  of 
the  United  States  existed.  If  such  declaration  could  have 
been  naade  with  truth,  it  would  undoubtedly  have  been 
made. 

"  General  Dearborn  plainly  supposed,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  act  declaring  war,  he  was  authorized  by 
virtue  of  the  power  given  him  by  the  President,  to  require 
any  part  or  the  whole  of  our  detached  militia  to  be  called 
out  and  marched  to  such  places  in  this  and  the  other  states 
as  he  might  think  proper.  If  this  construction  of  the  con- 
stitution is  correct,  the  President  and  Congress  will  be 
able  at  any  time,  by  declaring  war,  to  call  the  whole  mili- 
tia of  the  United  States  into  actual  service,  to  march  them 
to  such  places  as  they  may  think  fit,  and  retain  them  in 
service  as  long  as  the  war  shall  continue.  It  is  declared 
indeed  by  the  aforesaid  act  of  April  10th,  that  the  said  de- 
tachment shall  not  be  compelled  to  serve  a  *  longer  time 
than  six  months  after  they  arrive  at  the  place  of  rendez- 
vous.' But  if  the  mere  act  of  declaring  war  gives  a  right 
to  the  national  government  to  call  the  militia  into  service, 
and  detain  them  six  months,  it  must  give  a  right  to  detain 
them  six  years,  if  the  war  continues  so  long ;  and  the  na- 
tional government  has  the  same  authority  to  call  out  the 

whole,  as  a  part  of  the  militia." 

"  Although  many  of  the  most  important  attributes  of 
sovereignty  are  given  by  the  constitution  to  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  yet  there  are  some  which  still  belong 
to  the  state  governments  ;  of  these,  one  of  the  most  essen- 
tial is  the  entire  control  of  the  militia,  except  in  the  exi- 
gencies above  mentioned  ;  this  has  not  been  delegated  to 
the  United  States — it  is  therefore  reserved  to  the  states 
respectively ;  and  whenever  it  shall  be  taken  from  them, 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  243 

and  a  consolidation  of  the  military  force  of  the  states  shall 
be  effected,  the  security  of  the  state  governments  will  be 
lost,  and  they  will  wholly  depend  for  their  existence  upon 
the  moderation  and  forbearance  of  the  national  govern- 
ment. 

*'  I  have  been  fully  disposed  to  comply  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the 
laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  sincerely  regretted  that 
any  request  should  be  made  by  an  officer  of  the  national 
government  to  which  I  could  not  constitutionally  conform. 
But  it  appeared  to  me  that  the  requisition  aforesaid  was 
of  that  character ;  and  I  was  under  the  same  obligation  to 
maintain  the  rights  of  the  state,  as  to  support  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.  If  the  demand  was  not  war- 
ranted by  the  constitution,  T  should  have  violated  my  duty 
in  a  most  important  point,  if  I  had  attempted  to  enforce 
it,  and  had  thereby  assisted  in  withdrawing  the  militia 
from  the  rightful  authority  of  the  state.  Besides,  if  the 
measure  was  not  required  by  the  constitution,  it  would 
have  been  oppressive,  as  the  militia  must  have  been  called 
from  their  occupations  to  places  remote  from  their  homes, 
and  detained  in  the  service  during  the  busy  season  of  the 
year." 

The  governor  of  Connecticut,  upon  receiving  General 
Dearborn's  letter  of  June  22d,  in  pursuance  of  the  prac- 
tice upon  extraordinary  occasions  in  that  state,  immedi- 
ately convened  the  Council,  and  submitted  the  correspon- 
dence, and  the  whole  subject,  to  their  consideration,  for 
their  opinion  and  advice,  in  the  following  message — 

"Gentlemen  of  the  council, — The  agitation  which 
has  been  produced  by  the  late  measures  of  Congress,  un- 
doubtedly requires  great  caution  in  every  step  which  may 
be  taken  by  the  government  of  this  state.  And  it  would 
afford  me  particular  satisfaction,  if  the  Council  would  at 
this  meeting,  direct  their  attention  to  this  novel  situation 


244  HISTORY    OF    THE 

of  our  affairs,  and  communicate  to  me  their  advice  re- 
specting the  general  course  which  it  is  proper  for  the  Ex- 
ecutive to  pursue,  under  those  emergencies  which  may 
probably  arise.  But  the  particular  object  for  which  I  have 
thought  it  my  duty  to  convene  you  at  this  time,  is  to  request 
your  advice  respecting  the  course  which  it  is  proper  to  take 
with  a  requisition  of  the  national  government,  communi- 
cated through  the  medium  of  General  Dearborn,  for  de- 
taching five  companies  of  the  drafted  militia,  for  the  de- 
fence of  New-London  and  New-Haven. 

*'  The  order  for  detaching  three  thousand  men,  being 
the  quota  of  this  state  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  the 
10th  of  April,  was  received  and  immediately  executed. 
Since  which  I  received  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  War, 
communicating  a  request  from  the  President,  that  as  many 
of  the  detached  troops  as  General  Dearborn  should  re- 
quire for  the  defence  of  the  sea-coast  might  be  ordered 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States.  General  Dearborn 
has  now  made  his  requisition,  and  requested  four  compa- 
nies to  march  for  New-London,  and  one  for  New-Haven, 
and  to  be  placed  under  the  command  of  the  officers  com- 
manding at  those  posts. 

"My  answer  to  the  second  letter  from  the  Secretary  of 
War  was  necessarily  expressed  in  general  terms  that  the 
request  of  the  President  should  be  executed,  as  I  had  no 
right  to  presume  that  any  thing  would  be  required  which 
was  not  warranted  by  the  Constitution  and  the  law.  The 
demand  however,  now  made,  presents  several  important 
considerations.  It  becomes  a  question  whether  the  militia 
can  be  constitutionally  and  legally  demanded  until  one  of 
the  contingencies  enumerated  in  the  Constitution  shall  have 
arisen.  And  whether  a  requisition,  to  place  any  portion 
of  the  militia  under  the  command  of  a  continental  officer, 
can  be  executed.  Other  questions,  especially  important, 
may  arise  from  the  same  subject. 

"Relying,  gentlemen,  on  your  advice  in  this  emergency 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  245 

I  have  to  request  your  serious  and  deliberate  attention  to 
every  point  connected  with  it. 

/     "Roger  Griswold. 

"  Hartford,  June  29, 18 1 2." 

The  body  of  men  who  composed  the  Council  of  Con- 
necticut, formed  one  of  the  houses  of  the  legislature  of  that 
state,  and  consisted  of  the  lieutenant-governor,  and  twelve 
assistants.  They  took  the  matter  into  their  consideration, 
and  after  due  deliberation,  came  to  the  following  result — 

"  Jit  a  meeting  of  the  governor  and  council  of  the  state  of  Connecti- 
cut,  at  Hartford,  on  the  29th  of  June,  A.  D.  1812. 

**  His  excellency  the  governor  has  requested  of  this 
board  advice  respecting  the  course  which  it  is  proper 
to  take  on  a  requisition  of  the  national  government,  com- 
municated through  the  medium  of  General  Dearborn,  for 
detaching  five  companies  of  the  militia,  drafted  under  the 
act  of  Congress  of  the  10th  of  April  last,  for  the  defence 
of  New-London  and  New-Haven.  The  order  for  this  draft 
of  three  thousand  men  was  received,  and  immediately 
executed.  On  the  12th  of  instant  June,  the  Secretary  of 
War  requested  of  the  Governor  that  as  many  of  the  miHtia 
thus  drafted  as  General  Dearborn  should  require  for  the 
defence  of  the  sea-coast,  should  be  ordered  into  the  service 
of  the  United  States.  Presuming  that  nothing  would  be 
required  which  was  not  warranted  by  the  constitution  and 
the  law,  assurance  was  given  of  a  compliance  with  this 
request.  The  council  entirely  approve  of  the  promptitude 
with  which  the  Governor  has  thus  manifested  his  readiness 
to  comply  with  all  legal  and  constitutional  requisitions,  a 
promptitude  always  shown  by  the  Government  of  Con- 
necticut. 

"  General  Dearborn  now  requests  that  four  companies 
of  the  militia  drafted  as  stated,  be  detached  for  the  fort  at 
New-London,  and  one  company  for  the  fort  at  New- 
Haven,  to  he  put  under  the  command  of  the  officers  of  the  army 


246  HISTORY   OF   THE 

of  the  United  States,  stationed  at  those  posts.  His  excel- 
lency the  Governor  has  requested  the  '  serious  and  deli- 
berate attention '  of  this  board  to  the  following  questions, 
arising  out  of  the  requisition  of  General  Dearborn, — 'Can 
the  militia  be  legally  and  constitutionally  demanded  until 
one  of  the  contingencies  enumerated  in  the  constitution 
shall  have  arisen  ?  And  can  a  requisition,  to  place  any 
portion  of  the  militia  under  the  command  of  a  continental 
officer,  be  executed  ?  The  council,  impressed  with  the 
great  importance  of  these  questions,  have  seriously  and 
deliberately  examined  them,  and  in  compliance  with  the 
request  of  the  Governor,  now  present  to  him  the  result  of 
their  deliberations. 

"The  constitution  of  the  United  States  has  wisely  or- 
dained that  Congress  may  provide  for  calling  forth  the 
militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrec- 
tions, and  repel  invasions.  The  acts  of  Congress  of  Fe- 
bruary, 1795,  and  of  April,  1812,  in  strict  pursuance  of  the 
constitution,  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  into  the 
actual  service,  in  the  exigencies  above  named. 

*'  This  board  is  not  informed  that  the  requisition  of  Ge- 
neral Dearborn,  said  to  be  in  pursuance  of  that  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  of  the  12th  of  instant  June,  is  grounded 
on  a  declaration  made  by  the  President  of  the  United' 
States,  or  notice  by  him  given,  that  the  militia  are  required 
to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  or 
repel  invasions,  or  that  the  United  States  are  in  imminent 
danger  of  invasion.  As  none  of  the  exigencies  recognized 
by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  are 
shown  to  exist,  this  board  deem  his  excellency  the  Go- 
vernor to  be,  of  right,  the  commander  in  chief  of  the 
militia  of  this  state,  and  that  they  cannot  thus  be  with- 
drawn from  his  authority. 

'*  The  council  to  the  second  inquiry  observe,  that  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  officers  of  the  militia  shall  be  reserved 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  247 

to  the  states  respectively.     In  the  event  of  their  being 
called  forth  into  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States,  in 
any  of  the  exigencies   specified,  the  laws  of  the  United 
States   provide,    that  they  are   to  be  called  forth  as  a 
militia,  furnished  with  officers  by  the  state.     The  militia 
organized  under  the  act  of  the  10th  of  April,  from  which 
the  detachment  in  question  is  required,  have  been  regu- 
larly, and  in  conformity  to  law,  formed  into  a  division^ 
consisting  of  brigades,  regiments,  battalions,  and   com- 
panies.    The   requisition   of  General   Dearborn  is,  that 
five  companies,  which  constitute  a  battalion,  be  detached, 
four   of  which   are   required   for  the   fort   at  New-Lon- 
don, and  one  for  the  fort  at  New-Haven,  to  he  put  under 
the  command  of  the  officers  there  stationed.     The  council 
do  not  perceive  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  United 
States,  any  warrant   for  thus  taking   from   the   officers 
duly  appointed  by  the  state,  the  men  under  their   con- 
troul,  and  thus  impairing,  and  as  the  case  may  be,  evpn- 
tually  destroying  the  military  force  of  the  state.     Nor  do 
they  perceive  any  law  authorizing  the  officers  of  the  army 
of  the  United  States  to  detach  from   a  body  of  drafted 
militia,  now  organized  with  constitutional  officers,  a  por- 
tion of  its  men,  and  thus  weaken  and,  as  the   case  may 
be,  annihilate  the  detachment.     They  do  perceive,  how- 
ever, that   a  compliance  with  such  a  requisition   might 
transfer  the  militia  of  the  respective  states  into  the  army 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  thus  the  officers  of  the  mili- 
tia might  be  left  without  any  command,  except  in  name^ 
and  that  the  respective  states  might  thus  be  deprived  of 
the  militia  which  the  constitution  has  granted  to  them.    In 
this  view  of  this  interesting  subject,  the  council  advise  hig 
excellency  the  governor  not  to  comply  with  the  requisition 
►f  General  Dearborn. 

"In  view  of  this  result,  made  from  a  conviction  that  it 
is  just  and  conformable  to  the  constitution,  the  Council  \^y 
feel  entirely  disposed  to  give  ample  assurance  that  this 


( 


248  HISTORY   OF   THE 

state  will  ever  support  the  national  government  in  all  con- 
stitutional measures,  and  presume  that  in  case  of  invasion, 
or  imminent  danger  of  invasion,  the  governor  uill  deem 
it  expedient  to  make  such  provision  for  the  protection  of 
the  sea-coast  by  the  militia  of  the  state,  in  co-operation 
with  the  military  force  of  the  United  States,  as  the  public 
exigency  may  require,  and  as  is  warranted  by  law. 

"In  regard  to  other  matters  in  the  governor's  commu- 
nication, the  Council  forbear  to  remark  particularly,  rely- 
ing with  perfect  confidence  on  the  wisdom  of  his  Excel- 
lency, to  pursue  such  a  course,  in  any  emergencies  which 
may  arise,  as  becomes  the  chief  magistrate  of  a  free  and 
enlightened  people,  and  imploring  the  blessings  of  the  God 
of  our  fathers  for  protection  in  the  midst  of  the  calami- 
ties of  war. 

"  Passed  in  the  Council^ 
June  29th,  1812. 

"Thomas  Day,  Secretary.^^ 

The  call  upon  the  governor  of  Massachusetts,  it  has 
been  seen,  was  for  forty-one  companies.  These  compa- 
nies, upon  the  most  moderate  estimate  of  their  numbers, 
must  have  contained  between  three  and  four  thousand 
men,  including  officers,  non-commissioned  officers,  musi- 
cians, &c. ;  and  of  course  they  would  have  formed  a  divi- 
sion, and  would  have  had  a  legal  right  to  be  commanded 
by  a  major-general.  Instead  of  which,  the  highest  officer 
named  in  the  order  was  a  lieutenant-colonel.  The  order 
to  the  governor  of  Connecticut  was  more  explicit.  It  re- 
quired five  companies,  which  would  form  a  battalion,  and 
be  entitled  to  a  major's  command.  Instead  of  which,  no 
officer  of  any  rank  or  description  is  named  or  called  for, 
but  four  of  the  companies  were  directed  to  be  placed  im- 
mediately under  the  command  of  the  United  States  officer 
commanding  at  Fort  Trumbull,  near  New-London,  and 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  249 

the  fifth  under  the  United  States  officer  of  the  garrison  at 
New-Haven. 

In  both  cases,  the  orders  were  not  warranted  by  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.     The  reasoning  on  the  na- 
ture and  objects  of  the  requisition,  in  the  foregoing  result 
of  the  dehberations  of  the  Council  of  Connecticut,  is  con- 
clusive.    And  the  principle  for  which  they  contended,  is 
one  of  the  most  interesting  description  to  the  safety  of  the 
militia,  and  the  rights  and  security  of  the  individual  states. 
By  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  Congress  have 
power  to  call  forth  the  militia  of  the  states  only  in  three 
emergencies,  viz.  "To  execute  the  laws  of  the  union,  sup- 
press insurrections,  and  repel  invasions."     But  to  guard 
against  any  possible  mischief  that  might  arise,  either  to 
the  several  states,  when  thus  temporarily  deprived  of  their 
natural  protectors,  or  to  that  portion  of  the  inhabitants 
who  compose  the  mihtia,  it  was  provided  in  the  constitution, 
that  Congress  should  have  power  "To  provide  for  orga- 
nizing, arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for  govern- 
ing such  parts  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  states  respectively  the 
appointment  of  the  officers^  and  the  authority  of  training  the 
militia  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress.'* 
This  provision  is  not  only  plain  and  explicit,  but  in  the 
highest  degree  important  to  the  militia,  and  to  the  states 
to  which  they  belong.     If  when  called  into  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  they  were  to  be  taken  from  the  super- 
intendence of  their  own  officers,  and  placed  under  the 
command  of  United  States  officers,  they  would,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  become  incorporated  into  the  standing 
army  of  the  nation,  be  shut  up  in  garrisons,  be  commanded 
by  officers  of  the  standing  army,  and  be  subject  to  the 
same  government  with  the  standing  army — or  in  other 
words,  to  that  severe  and  sanguinary  code,  the  "  Rules 
and  Articles  of  War."    By  those  rules  and  articles  it  is  pro- 
vided,— that  "  All  officers  serving  by  commission  from  the 

32 


250  HISTORY   OF   THE 

authority  of  any  particular  state,  shall  on  all  detachmenisfy 
courts-martial,  or  other  duty,  wherein  they  may  be  em- 
ployed in  conjunction  with  the  regular  forces  of  the  United 
States,  take  rank  next  after  all  officers  of  the  like  grade 
in  said  regular  forces,  notwithstanding  the  commissions  of 
such  militia  or  state  officers  may  be  older  than  the  com- 
missions of  the  officers  of  the  regular  forces  of  the  United 
States."  From  this  provision,  it  is  apparent,  that  it  was 
intended,  by  the  order  of  General  Dearborn,  to  put  the 
militia  of  Connecticut  into  the  United  States  forts  at  New- 
London  and  New-Haven,  under  the  immediate  command 
of  United  States  officers,  to  perform  garrison  duty,  in  the 
same  manner  as  if  they  had  been  regularly  enlisted  into 
the  standing  army  of  the  United  States.  No  proposition 
can  be  more  plain  than  this, — that  if  this  project  had  suc- 
ceeded, an  unquestionable  and  most  important  provision 
of  the  constitution  would  have  been  violated^  and  the  rights 
of  the  militia,  in  an  equal  degree,  not  have  been  merely 
infringed,  but  sacrificed. 

The  consequences  of  such  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
national  government,  had  it  been  carried  into  effect,  may 
perhaps  be  considered  at  the  present  time  with  a  greater 
degree  of  coolness  and  deliberation,  than  could  have  been 
expected  when  the  country  was  under  the  agitation  and 
excitement  which  a  state  of  war  naturally  produces,  and 
which  party  feelings  and  passions  are  well  calculated  great- 
ly to  increase  and  extend.  If  the  New-England  states 
had  given  up  their  militia,  at  the  requisition  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  and  in  a  total  disregard  of  the 
federal  constitution,  a  precedent  would  have  been  establish- 
ed that  might,  and,  one  day  or  other,  in  all  probability 
would,  have  proved  fatal  to  the  liberties  of  the  country. 
By  the  act  of  Congress  of  April  10th  above  alluded  to,  the 
President  was  authorized,  at  his  own  discretion,  to  call 
into  the  public  service  one  hundred  thousand  mihtia.  lie 
was  constituted  the  sole  judge  of  the  time  when  they  should 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  251 

be  ordered  into  the  field,  and  of  the  numbers  that  should 
be  called  for  on  any  given  occasion.  By  depriving  them 
of  their  constitutional  right  to  be  commanded  by  their  own 
officers,  and  placing  them  under  that  of  officers  of  the  re- 
gular army,  they  might  be  pent  up  in  garrisons,  or  sent  to 
any  distant  point  of  military  operations  which  the  Presi- 
dent himself,  or  Major-General  Dearborn  should  think 
proper  to  designate.  In  this  way,  the  several  states  would 
have  been  stripped  of  their  natural  and  constitutional  de- 
fenders, and  left  exposed  to  all  the  variety  of  evils  which 
such  a  condition  necessarily  presupposes,  while  the  militia 
themselves^  would  have  been  subjected  to  all  the  hardships 
and  degradation  which  are  always  experienced  in  standing 
armies. 

Nor  was  this  all.     By  the  rules  and  articles  of  war  it  is 
provided,  that — "  The   officers  and  soldiers  of  any  troops, 
whether  militia  or  others,  being  mustered  and  in  pay  of 
the  United  States,  shall,  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places, 
when  joined,  or  acting  in  conjunction  with   the   regular 
forces  of  the  United  States,  be  governed  by  these  rules  and 
articles  of  war,  and  shall  be  subject  to  be  tried  by  courts 
martial,  in  like  manner  with  the  officers  and  soldiers  in 
the  regular  forces,  save  only  that  such  courts  martial  shall 
he  composed  entirely  of  militia  officers.''^    By  omitting  in  the 
order  issued  by  General  Dearborn  to  the  Governor  of  Con- 
necticut, to  include  officers,  and  placing  the  men  under  the 
exclusive  command  of  United  States  officers,  the  impor- 
tant provision  above  recited  from  the  rules  and  articles  of 
war,  securing  to  the  militia  the  privilege  of  being  tried  in 
courts  martial  by  militia  officers,  would  have  been  entirely 
evaded,  because  no  such  officers  would  have  been  in  the 
service,  of  whom  such  courts  could  have  been  formed.  And 
in  the  case  of  Massachusetts,  by  ordering  out  only  officers 
of  a  lower  grade  than  the  laws  required,  and  a  much 
smaller  number  than  the  number  of  troops  demanded,  the 
benefit  intended  to  be  secured  to  the  militia  by  the  forego- 


252  HISTORY    OF   THE 

ing  provision,  would  have  Leen  in  a  great  measure  lost  to 
them,  because  there  might  not  have  been,  in  various  sup- 
posable  cases,  militia  officers  in  the  service,  of  whom  the 
courts  martial  could  have  been  formed. 

On  the  15th  of  July,  1812,  General  Dearborn  wrote  let- 
ters of  the  following  tenor  to  the  governors  of  Massachu- 
setts and  Connecticut — 

*'  Head  Quarters ,  Boston,  July  15, 1812. 

**  Having  received  orders  to  leave  the  sea-coast,  where  I 
was  ordered  for  the  purpose  of  taking  the  necessary  mea- 
sures for  placing  the  towns  and  garrisons  in  a  state  of 
defence  against  the  invasion  or  attack  of  the  enemy,  and 
to  repair  to  Albany — it  becomes  my  duty  again  to  request 
your  excellency  to  order  out  such  part  of  your  states'  quota 
of 'detached  militia  as  the  present  state  of  war  requires. 
The  numbers  I  had  the  honour  to  state  to  your  excellency, 
in  my  letter  of  the  22d  ult.  As  other  objects  will  require 
the  service  of  a  great  part  of  the  regular  troops,  it  will  he- 
come  my  duty  to  order  them  from  the  sea-hoard,  and,  of 
course,  I  must  leave  some  part  of  the  coast  with  less  protection 
against  those  depredating  parties  of  the  enemy,  that  may 
attempt  invasion  for  the  mere  purpose  of  plunder,  than  pru- 
dence would  have  justified,  if  a  suitable  number  of  the  mili- 
tia should  not  be  ordered  out  in  conformity  with  the  views 
and  intentions  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as 
heretofore  expressed.  If  your  excellency  shall  consider  it 
expedient  to  have  the  militia  turned  out  for  the  proposed 
purposes,  I  will  with  pleasure  afford  all  the  aid  in  my 
power,  for  effecting  the  intended  objects,  consistently  with 
the  orders  I  have  received.  As  early  an  answer  as  your 
excellency  can  make  convenient,  will  be  desirable. 

*'  I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

"  Very  respectfully,  your  Excellency's 
*'  Most  obedient  servant, 

*'  H.  Dearborn,  Major  General" 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  253 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  when  the  war  was  declared, 
it  was  professedly  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  Great  Britain 
to  revoke  her  orders  in  council,  and  to  abandon  the  prac- 
tice of  impressment.  In  order  to  accomplish  these  objects, 
the  nation  at  large  was  subjected  to  the  various  calamities 
which  an  offensive  war  necessarily  brings  upon  any  coun- 
try. But  the  Atlantic  coast  was  exposed  to  all  the  evils 
which  a  powerful  maritime  enemy,  having  the  absolute 
command  of  the  ocean,  might  be  disposed  to  inflict  upon 
a  defenceless  foe.  It  would  have  been  natural,  under  such 
circumstances,  to  expect  that  the  government  which  had 
declared  the  war,  would  at  least  have  taken  all  possible 
care  to  guard  against  invasions  and  depredations  along 
the  sea-shore ; — especially  as  the  large  towns  and  cities, 
and  the  oldest  and  wealthiest  settlements,  lay  very  near  to 
the  ocean,  and  of  course  were  peculiarly  exposed  to  hostile 
attacks.  Instead  of  which,  within  less  than  a  month  after 
the  declaration  of  war,  the  letter  above  recited  was  for- 
warded by  the  commander  in  chief  of  the  American  army 
to  the  chief  magistrates  of  two  of  the  New-England  states, 
informing  them  that  he  had  received  orders  to  leave  the 
sea-coast,  and  to  repair  to  Albany ;  and  adding,  that  as  other 
objects  besides  the  defence  of  the  coast  would  require  the 
service  of  a  great  part  of  the  regular  troops,  it  would  be- 
come his  duty  to  order  those  troops  from  the  sea-board, 
and  that  this  inust  leave  some  part  of  the  coast  with  less 
protection  against  those  depredating  parties  of  the  enemy, 
who  might  attempt  invasion  for  the  mere  purpose  of  plun- 
der, than  prudence  would  justify.  Hence  he  urges  the  de- 
tachment of  the  militia,  which  had  been  previously  called 
for.  If  any  new  or  additional  motive  could  have  been  neces- 
sary to  induce  those  states  to  proceed  with  the  strictest 
caution,  and  to  guard  against  any  unconstitutional  demand 
for  the  militia,  it  might  have  been  found  in  this  letter. 
The  coast  of  New-England,  stretching  from  New-Bruns- 
wick to  the  border  of  the  state  of  New- York,  may  be  con- 


254  HISTORY    OF    THE 

sidered  as  between  six  and  seven  hundred  miles  in  length ; 
and  the  property  upon  it  which  would  be  exposed  to  the 
depredations  of  an  enemy,  was  undoubtedly  many  times 
greater  than  lay  in  the  same  predicament  upon  the  coast 
south  of  New- York,  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.     And  yet,  the 
small  force  which  the  national  government  had  stationed 
upon  that  coast,  was  ordered  away  in  pursuit  of  other  ob- 
jects— that  is  the  conquest  of  Canada — and  the  inhabitants 
left  exposed  to  the  miseries  of  invasion  and  depredation. 
And  this  measure  of  depriving  the  eastern  coast  of  the 
United  States  troops,  in  a  time  of  war,  which  had  been 
stationed  there  for  their  protection  and  security  in  a  time 
of  peace,  was  adopted  at  the  very  moment  when,  if  the 
assertion  of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Union  was  to  be 
credited,  there  was  the  greatest  need  of  their  exertions  for 
the  public  safety  ;  for  in  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  Lieutenant  Governor  Smith  of  Connecticut,  dated 
July  14th,  1812 — one  day  after  the  date  of  the  foregoing 
letters  to  the  governors  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut 
— that  officer  says  he  was  instructed  by  the  President  to 
state  to  Governor  Smith,  that  there  was  at  that  time,  immi- 
nent danger  of  the  invasion  of  the  country;  and  this  was 
advanced  as  a  reason  why  the  militia  of  those  states  should 
be  ordered  out  agreeably  to  the  call  made  by  General 
Dearborn.  ^ 

Could  any  thing  be  more  preposterotis  than  such  con- 
duct as  this  I,  Had  it  been  in  the  power  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States  to  conquer  the  Canadas,  they  would 
have  been  worthless  compared  with  the  value  of  the  coun- 
try and  the  settlements  upon  the  New-England  coast.  And 
events  very  speedily  proved  the  weakness  and  absurdity  of 
the  attempts  to  invade  and  subdue  the  British  provinces. 
Disaster  and  disgrace  overtook  our  forces ;  and  the  con- 
quest of  the  Canadas,  weak  and  unprotected  as  they  were, 
was  soon  found  to  be  altogether  chimerical.  Instead  of 
victors,  our  forces  were  led  from  the  field  as  prisoners  of 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  255 

war ;  and  the  people  on  the  frontiers  were  placed  in  great 
hazard  of  invasion,  from  the  very  enemy  against  whom 
offensive  war  had  been  declared. 

Little  as  the  New-England  states  had  been  satisfied  with 
the  origin  of  the  war,  they  had  still  less  reason  to  be  pleased 
with  the  manner  of  carrying  it  on.     In  a  very  short  time  it 
became  apparent  that  they  must  defend  themselves,  or  be 
left  at  the  mercy  of  the  foreign  enemy.     It  was  equally 
apparent,  that  if  the  President  of  the  United  States  had 
the  constitutional  right  to  call  forth  the  hundred  thousand 
militia,  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  April  lOth,  1812,  put 
them  under  command  of  United  States  officers,  and  march 
them  to  any  point  or  station  which  he  might  think  proper, 
the  states  would  have  been  entirely  deprived  of  their  natural 
and  legitimate  means  of  defence,  and  left  exposed  to  the 
inroads  of  the  enemy  wherever  they  should  think  proper  to 
visit  their  coasts,  and  invade  their  territory.     It  therefore 
became  a  matter  of  not  only  constitutional  right,  but  of 
self-security  in  the  New-England  states,  exposed  as  they 
were,  to  meet  the  evils  with  which  they  were  threatened 
at  the  threshold.  Accordingly,  in  Connecticut,  the  opinion 
and  advice  of  the  council  of  the  state  were  taken ;   and  in 
Massachusetts,  in  pursuance  of  the  practice  of  that  state 
in  times  of  emergency,  the  case  was  submitted  to  the  su 
preme  court  of  the  state,  for  their  decision  upon  the  fol- 
lowing questions — 

"  1.  Whether  the  commanders  in  chief  of  the  militia  of 
the  several  states  have  a  right  to  determine  whether  any 
of  the  exigencies  contemplated  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  exist,  so  as  to  require  them  to  place  the  mi- 
litia, or  any  part  of  it,  in  the  service  of  the  United  States, 
at  the  request  of  the  President,  to  be  commanded  by  him, 
pursuant  to  acts  of  Congress  ? 

"2.  Whether,  when  either  of  the  exigencies  exist  au- 
thorizing the  employing  the  militia  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  the  militia  thus  employed  can  be  lawfully 


256  HISTORY    OF    THE 

commanded  by  any  officers  but  of  the  militia,  except  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  ?" 

The  court,  consisting  of  three  very  eminent  judges,  viz. 
Theophilus  Parsons,  Samuel  Sewall,  and  Isaac  Parker, 
gave  it  as  their  opinion,  that  the  commanders  in  chief  of 
the  several  states  had  the  right  to  decide  whether  any  of 
the  constitutional  exigencies  existed,  which  authorized  the 
calling  forth  of  the  militia.  In  our  judgment,  there  were 
many  strong  reasons  in  favour  of  this  opinion ;  one  of 
which'  may  be  found  in  the  following  letter  from  the 
Secretary  of  War  to  Lieutenant-Governor  Smith,  of  Con- 
necticut— 

"  War  Department,  July  Mth,  1812. 

Sir, — I  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  your  letter  of 
'the  2d  inst.  The  absence  of  his  excellency  Governor 
Griswold,  '  on  account  of  ill  health,'  is  seriously  to  be  re- 
gretted, particularly  at  this  important  crisis,  when  his 
prompt  assurances  of  obeying  the  requisition  of  the  Presi- 
dent, to  call  into  the  service  of  the  United  States  such  de- 
tachments of  militia  as  might  be  required,  conformably  to 
the  act  of  April  10th,  1812,  through  General  Dearborn, 
are  interrupted  and  suspended  by  your  honour. 

*'  The  reason  assigned  for  refusing  to  execute  the  en- 
gagements of  his  excellency  Governor  Griswold,  appear 
not  less  extraordinary  than  the  act  itself.  After  a  decla- 
ration of  war  against  a  nation  possessed  of  powerful  and 
numerous  fleets,  a  part  of  which  were  actually  on  our 
coast,  had  been  promulgated,  and  officially  communicated 
to  the  executive  of  the  state,  the  assertion  made  by  your 
honour,  '  that  the  governor  is  not  informed  that  the  United 
States  are  in  imminent  danger  of  invasion,^  was  not  to  have 
been  expected.  To  remove  all  doubt  from  your  mind  on 
this  subject,  /  am  instructed  by  the  President,  to  state  to  you 
that  such  danger  actually  exists  ;  and  to  request  that  the  re- 
quisition of  General  Dearborn,  made  by  his  special  autho- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  257 

rity  for  calling  into  the  service  of  the  United  States  certain 
detachments  of  militia  from  the  state  of  Connecticut,  be 
forthwith  carried  into  effect. 

"  The  right  of  the  state  to  officer  the  militia,  is  clearly 
recognized  in  the  requisition  of  General  Dearborn.  The 
detachments,  when  marched  to  the  several  posts  assigned 
them,  with  their  proper  officers  appointed  conformably  to 
the  laws  of  the  state,  will  command,  or  be  commanded, 
according  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war,  and  the  usages 
of  service. 

^'  I  have  the  honour  to  be, 

"  Respectfully,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

<*  W.    EUSTIS. 
*'  His  Honor  John  Cotton  Smith, 
Sharon,  Connecticut." 

lAt  the  date  of  this  letter,  war  had  been  declared  but 
four  weeks.  The  fact  that  such  an  event  had  occurred 
was  not  known  to  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  and 
of  course,  no  measures  could  have  been  adopted  by  that 
government  for  the  invasion  of  our  country,  or  even  for  the 
prosecution  of  hostile  measures  of  any  description  towards 
the  United  States.  With  what  propriety  then  could  it  be 
said,  that  this  country  was  in  imminent  danger  of  invasion 
on  the  14th  of  July,  1812  ?  It  was  not  true.  *'  Imminent 
danger"  means  danger  near  at  hand,  threatening,  imme- 
diate. Under  no  circumstances  could  an  order  for  the 
invasion  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  be  expected 
from  Great  Britain  in  less  than  five  or  six  weeks  after  the 
14th  of  July.  Whatever  danger,  therefore,  there  might 
have  been  of  eventual  invasion,  it  was  then  remote,  and 
not  imminent ;  and  therefore  the  declaration  in  the  letter 
above  alluded  to  was  not  warranted  by  facts.  But  it  is  to 
be  presumed  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  that  if  it 
had  been  considered  necessary  at  the  time,  the  same  de- 
claration would  have  been  made  when  General  Dearborn 

33 


258  HISTORY    OF    THE 

wrote  his  letters  to  the  governors  of  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut,  calling  for  the  respective  quotas  of  militia 
from  those  states,  viz.  on  the  22d  of  June,  four  days  after 
the  declaration  of  war. 

On  the  I7th  of  July  General  Dearborn  addressed  the 
following  letter  to  Lieutenant  Governor  Smith — 

"  Head  (Quarters,  Boston^  July  17,  1812. 

"HON.    JOHN    COTTON    SMITH. 

"  Sir, — Being  disposed  to  obviate  as  far  as  my  authority 
extends,  the  objection  to  turning  out  the  companies,  re- 
quired from  the  state  of  Connecticut,  in  my  letter  to  Go- 
vernor Griswold  of  the  22d  June  ult.  I  renew  my  requisi- 
tion to  your  honor  as  acting  governor  in  the  absence  of  his 
excellency  Governor  Griswold,  and  request  that  you  would 
turn  out  the  number  of  companies  proposed  in  my  letter 
above  alluded  to ;  and  that  those  companies  destined  for 
Fort  Trumbull  may  be  commanded  by  one  of  the  majors 
that  shall  have  been  detached  with  your  state's  quota. 

"I  have  the  honour,  Sir,  to  be  respectfully 
"  Your  most  obedient  servant, 

"  H.  Dearborn,  Major  General.'*'^ 

To  this  letter,  the  following  answer  was  returned — 

''Lyme,  22d  August,  1812. 

"  Sir, — Your  two  letters  of  the  15th  and  17th  of  July 
were  put  into  my  hands  immediately  after  my  return  from 
the  state  of  New  York  ;  but  accidentally  were  left  at  Hart- 
ford, without  having  been  acknowledged.  No  inconve- 
nience however  could  have  resulted,  as  the  answer  to  the 
letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  the  14th  of  July,  ex- 
pressed the  determination  of  the  government  of  this  state, 
on  the  points  you  had  suggested. 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  259 

^'  I  have  therefore  only  to  express  my  satisfaction  of  the 
readiness  with  which  you  proposed  to  give  the  command 
of  the  companies  required  for  New-London,  to  a  major  of 
our  own  ;  together  with  your  disposition  to  make  every 
necessary  provision  for  the  defence  of  the  sea-coast.  And 
on  all  occasions,  I  shall  be  happy  to  co-operate  with  you  in 
such  measures  as  our  defence  may  require. 

'*  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  high  respect, 
"  Your  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

(Signed)  "  Roger  Griswold." 

"  General  Dearborn." 

On  the  4th  of  August,  1812,  Governor  Griswold  again 
convened  the  council,  and  submitted  to  their  consideration 
the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  14th,  and  those 
of  the  15th  and  17th  of  July  from  General  Dearborn,  which 
have  already  been  quoted,  and  received  from  them  the  fol- 
lowing report — 

*'w2^  a  meeting  of  the  Governor  and  Council  of  the  state  of  Connec- 
ticut, held  at  Hartford  on  the  fourth  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1812. 

"A  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  War  addressed  to  his 
honor  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  dated  July  14th,  1812, 
and  two  letters  from  Major-Gene ral  Dearborn,  one  dated 
July  15th,  addressed  to  his  excellency  the  Governor,  and 
one  dated  July  17th,  addressed  to  his  honor,  the  Lieuten- 
ant-Governor, have  been  submitted  by  his  excellency  the 
Governor  to  this  board,  for  their  consideration  and  advice. 
They  all  relate  to  the  subject  of  ordering  five  companies 
of  the  militia  of  this  state  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  obvious  that  the  claim  for  the  services  of  the 
militia  is  made  on  the  ground  that  war  has  been  declared 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  against  Great  Bri- 
tain. No  place  in  this  state,  or  in  the  United  States,  has 
been  particularly  designated  as  in  danger  of  being  invaded. 
The  danger  which  exists  is  that  alone  which  arises  from 
a  state  of  war  thus  declared  ;  and  exists  throughout  the 


260  HISTORY    OF    THE 

United  States,  and  will  continue,  so  long  as  the  war  shall 
last.  To  provide  against  this  supposed  danger  cf  invasion 
five  companies  of  militia  are  required. 

"  They  are  required  to  do  ordinary  garrison  duty  at  the 
forts  at  New-London  and  New-Haven.  Upon  the  same 
principle,  that  the  militia  may  be  called  for,  to  march  to 
these  places  and  do  this  duty,  they  may  be  called  for,  to 
march  to  any  place  within  the  United  States,  to  perform 
the  same  duty,  and  this,  from  time  to  time,  and  at  all  times, 
during  the  continuance  of  the  war.  It  will  not  escape 
attention  that  this  requisition  is  not  made  for  a  portion  of 
the  militia,  most  convenient  to  the  place  of  danger  or  scene  of 
action^  pursuant  to  the  act  of  Congress,  approved  February 
28th,  1795,  but  is  made  upon  the  Governor  of  this  state, 
for  a  portion  of  the  militia  detached,  pursuant  to  an  act  of 
Congress  passed  the  10th  day  of  April,  1812,  and  liable 
by  the  terms  of  that  act,  to  be  called  into  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  when,  and  only  when  one  oi  the  exigen- 
cies provided  hy  the  Constitution  shall  occur.  By  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  those  exigencies  are,  to  exe- 
cute the  Laws  of  the  Umon^  suppress  Insurrections,  and  repel 
Invasions.  It  is  believed  that  the  militia  of  this  state 
would  be  among  the  first  to  perform  their  constitutional 
duties,  and  not  among  the  last  to  understand  and  justly 
appreciate  their  constitutional  rights.  Should  any  portion 
of  this  state  be  invaded  or  menaced  with  invasion  by  a 
foreign  power,  the  militia  would  not  wait  for  a  requisition, 
but  hasten  with  alacrity  to  the  place  invaded  or  threatened, 
to  meet  and  repel  it.  Of  this  spirit  his  excellency  the 
Governor  would  doubtless  receive  prompt  evidence,  in  the 
execution  of  the  laws  of  this  state,  should  the  necessity 
/  unhappily  arise.  But  if  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
/  have  seen  fit  to  exercise  the  power  to  declare  war,  before 
/  they  have  carried  into  execution  another  provision  of  the 
\  Constitution  to  raise  and  support  armies,  it  does  not  follow 
\  that  the  militia  are  bound  to  enter  their  forts  and  garrisons 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  261 

to  perform  ordinary  garrison  duty,  and  wait  for  an  inva- 
sion, which  may  never  happen. 

**  Whatever  may  be  the  disposition  of  this  state,  or  the 
militia  thereof,  to  render  vohmtary  services  under  state 
authority  to  carry  on  the  war  in  which  this  country  is  un- 
happily engaged,  it  is  surely  important  that  when  demands 
are  made  by  the  administration  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  they  should  be  found  to  be  strictly  within 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  while  obedience 
shall  be  promptly  yielded  to  all  its  requirements,  that  the 
constitution  and  sovereignty  of  this  state  should  not  be 
impaired  or  encroached  upon — That  the  powers  ^delega- 
ted to  the  United  States''  may  be  exercised,  and  the  pow- 
ers '■reserved  to  the  states  respectively^  may  be  retained. 
And  as  no  information  has  been  given,  and  none  is  in  pos- 
session of  this  board,  that  any  part  of  this  state  is  invaded, 
or  that  any  other  danger  exists  than  that  which  arises  from 
a  declaration  of  war  made  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  against  Great  Britain,  and  the  suggestion  that  a 
part  of  her  fleet  has  been  on  the  coast  of  the  United  States, 
and  as  the  militia  are  called  for,  not  to  repel  invasion,  but 
to  perform  ordinary  garrison  duty,  the  Council  are  of 
opinion  that  it  does  not  consist  with  'the  powers  retained' 
by  this  state  to  order  its  militia  into  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  on  the  requisition  of  any  of  the  oflicers  of 
the  United  States,  in  a  case  not  demanded  by  the  constitu- 
tion. And  until  such  case  occurs,  the  Council  advise  his 
excellency  the  Governor  to  retain  the  militia  of  this  state 
under  his  own  command,  and  decline  a  compliance  with 
the  requisition  of  the  Secretary  of  War  and  Major-Gene- 
ral  Dearborn.     Passed  in  the  Council. 

"Attest.  Thomas  Day,  Secretary.''^ 

In  this  state  of  things,  Governor  Griswold  called  an 
extra  session  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Connecticut,  on 
the  fourth  Tuesday  of  August,  1812,  on  which  occasion  he 
transmitted  to  them  the  following  message — 


262  HISTORY   OF   THE 


"  Message  of  his  Excellency   Governor   Griswold,  to  the  General 
Assembly^  tvith  the  Documents  accompanying  the  same. 

*'  Gentlemen   of   the    council,    mr.    speaker,   and 
gentlemen   of  the   house   of  representatives. 

"  Several  important  matters,  growing  out  of  the  war 
in  which  we  are  unhappily  engaged,  appear  to  demand  the 
immediate  attention  of  the  legislature  ;  and  although  aware 
of  the  expense  and  inconvenience  attending  a  meeting  of 
the  General  Assembly  at  this  season  of  the  year,  and  at  a 
time  so  near  the  fall  session,  yet,  I  trust,  that  on  a  full  ex- 
amination of  all  the  circumstances,  it  will  appear  that  the 
measure  has  become  highly  expedient.  To  render  our 
public  concerns,  however,  intelligible,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  unfold  the  events  which  have  attended  us. 

"  It  is  known  to  the  Assembly,  that  on  the  10th  of  April 
last.  Congress  passed  an  act  to  detach  one  hundred  thou- 
sand militia  for  the  service  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
three  thousand  men,  the  quota  of  this  state,  agreeably  to 
the  orders  of  the  President,  were  promptly  detached,  and 
held  in  readiness,  for  the  exigencies  pointed  out  by  the 
constitution  and  the  law. 

"  The  act  of  Congress,  and  the  measures  regarding  it, 
were  communicated  at  the  last  session,  and  will  be  again 
laid  before  you.  After  your  adjournment,  a  letter  was 
received  from  the  War  Department,  dated  June  12th, 
transferring  the  duty  of  calling  for  the  men  to  General 
Dearborn,  and  requesting  that  his  requisition  might  there- 
fore be  complied  with. 

"  As  nothing  appeared  in  this  communication,  but  a 
wish  of  the  President  to  confide  this  duty  to  an  officer  of 
rank,  who  it  was  understood,  would  be  charged  with  the 
general  command  of  the  troops  in  the  northern  states,  and 
as  it  could  not  be  expected  that  the  President  would  au- 
thorize an  order  which  should  be  repugnant  to  the  consti- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  268^ 

tulion ;  I  did  not  hesitate  to  inform  the  Secretary  of  War, 
that  any  requisition  which  the  President  might  make 
through  General  Dearborn  should  be  compHed  with. 

"  Soon  after  these  transactions,  at  a  time  when  I  was 
pursuing  a  journey  for  my  health,  a  letter  was  received 
from  General  Dearborn,  requiring  four  companies  of  the 
drafted  militia  to  march,  and  to  be  placed  under  the  com- 
mand of  the  officer  commanding  at  Fort  Trumbull  at  New- 
London,  and  one  company  to  march  for  the  battery  near 
New-Haven.  lAn  attention  to  the  terms  of  General  Dear- 
born's letter  fully  satisfied  me,  that  the  requisition  was  un- 
constitutional and  could  not  be  complied  with.  I  had  long 
noticed  that  important  provision  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  authorizes  the  President  to  call  into 
service  the  militia,  '  to  repel  invasions,  suppress  insurrec- 
tions, and  to  aid  in  the  execution^of  the  laws  ;'  and  it  was 
with  satisfaction  I  had  noticed  that  the  act  of  Congress 
had  strictly  followed  the  principle  of  the  constitution. 

"But  although  I  entertained  no  doubts  regarding  my 
duty,  yet  as  T  viewed  the  step  which  it  became  necessary 
to  take,  highly  important,  it  became  proper  for  me  to  ob- 
tain the  reasonings  and  opinions  of  the  Council  on  the 
occasion. 

"That  body  was  accordingly  convened  at  Hartford,  and 
it  gave  me  great  satisfaction  to  find  that  their  opinions 
concurred  with  my  own.  Thinking  it  necessary,  however, 
to  pursue  my  journey,  his  honor.  Governor  Smith,  was  so 
good  as  to  take  the  charge  of  the  correspondence  which 
had  become  necessary  on  the  occasion ;  and  by  his  letter 
to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  2d  of  July,  communicated 
the  opinion  entertained  in  this  state,  and  our  determination 
respecting  the  requisition. 

"The  Secretary  in  reply,  dated  July  14th,  in  language 
unusual,  and  altogether  unexpected,  appeared  to  claim  a 
promise,  contained  in  my  letter  of  the  12th  of  June,  to 
execute  any  requisition  which  should  be  made  by  General 


264  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Dearborn.  This  strange  insinuation,  which  originated  in 
expressions  of  civility  to  the  President,  and  could  not  with 
decency  have  been  omitted,  was  repelled. 

"  In  a  letter  from  the  War  Department,  the  subject 
was  also  placed  in  a  point  of  view  which  appeared  to  re- 
quire a  new  consideration;  and  a  second  meeting  of  the 
Council  was  accordingly  deemed  necessary.  The  gentle- 
men comprising  that  body  were  again  fully  consulted,  and 
every  view  of  the  subject  has  been  taken  of  which  it  ap- 
peared susceptible,  and  we  have  been  confirmed  in  the 
opinion  which  we  first  formed,  and  the  Council  has  again 
advised  that  nothing  has  taken  place  to  justify  me  in  exe- 
cuting the  requisition  of  General  Dearborn. 

"  All  the  papers,  to  which  I  have  referred,  together  with 
a  general  proclamation,  concisely  explaining  the  facts 
which  have  taken  place,  and  the  views  which  have  been 
entertained  at  this  important  period,  will  be  now  commu- 
nicated for  your  inspection. 

"  The  importance  of  this  measure,  both  as  it  regards 
the  security  of  the  state,  and  as  it  may  also  form  a  prece- 
dent on  future  occasions,  rendered  it  highly  important  to 
consult  the  General  Assembly. 

"But  the  inconvenience  of  convening  so  large  a  body, 
and  the  early  period  of  the  fall  session,  induced  me  to  sub- 
mit to  the  temporary  disadvantage  of  a  delay,  rather  than 
subject  the  immediate  re[)resentatives  of  the  people  to  so 
much  inconvenience.  Several  new  circumstances,  how- 
ever, having  arisen,  which  it  appeared  to  me  could  not 
with  propriety  admit  of  delay;  I  have  thought  it  my  duty 
at  this  time  to  cenvene  the  legislative  body,  and  I  avail 
myself  of  the  occasion  to  solicit  your  immediate  attention 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  council,  and  your  deliberate  opi- 
nion on  the  measure  which  has  been  taken.  This  becomes 
more  immediately  important,  from  the  consideration,  that 
if  any  errors  have  been  committed,  they  may,  at  this  time, 
be  corrected  without  much  inconvenience. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  265 

*'  The  necessity  of  obtaining  supplies  of  military  stores 
on  this  emergency,  in  addition  to  those  already  on  hand, 
will  be  universally  felt ;  and  finding  the  price  and  scarcity 
rapidly  increasing,  I  thought  no  consideration  could  justify 
a  delay  in  calling  the  attention  of  the  legislature  imme- 
diately to  that  subject.  It  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to 
inform  you  that  military  stores  are  not  to  be  expected 
from  the  general  government  ;  and  that  we  have  reason 
to  expect  that  the  regular  troops  will  be  principally  called 
from  the  sea-coast,  and  of  course  the  state  will  be  left  to 
defend  itself,  if  exposed  to  foreign  invasion. 

"  It  may  also  be  observed  that  it  is  unwise  to  depend 
altogether  upon  the  general  government  for  the  defence 
of  our  sea-coast. 

*'  The  extensive  territory  which  it  has  been  the  national 
policy  to  grasp  within  our  jurisdiction,  and  the  great  num- 
ber of  points  requiring  defence,  together  with  an  unhappy 
disposition  to  enlarge  our  extended  frontier  by  new  con- 
quests, will  probably  demand  all  the  military  force  in  the 
power  of  government  for  similar  objects.  This  appears 
to  be  the  determination  at  this  time,  and  the  important 
business  of  garrisoning  the  coast  must  be  left  to  the  mili- 
tia, or  neglected. 

"  But  if  these  essential  interests  are  disregarded,  we 
must  not  neglect  ourselves  ;  and  I  trust  that  the  present 
occasion  will  furnish  the  best  reasons,  for  improving  the 
militia  both  in  organization  and  discipline,  and  for  obtain- 
ing ample  supplies  of  arms  and  military  stores,  and  placing 
ourselves  on  the  best  footing  for  defence.  It  is  also  proper 
to  avail  ourselves  of  every  principle  in  the  constitution  for 
rendering  our  means  effectual  and  the  least  inconvenient. 

"  Among  other  provisions  in  the  constitution,  it  will  be 
found,  that  in  time  of  war  the  states  may  organize  and 
support  a  military  force  of  their  own,  and  which  cannot, 
under  any  circumstances,  be  controlled  by  the  general 
government,  and  which  may  undoubtedly  be  applied  in  all 

34 


266  HISTORY    OF   THE 

cases  to  the  defence  of  the  State.  Whether  such  a  force 
will  become  immediately  necessary,  the  general  assembly 
will  judge  ;  but  as  the  subject  can  be  examined  and  a  plan 
partially  digested  without  expense,  and  measures  com- 
menced for  the  speedy  execution  of  the  principle  at  an 
early  but  future  session,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  recommend 
that  subject  to  your  consideration. 

"In  recommending  this  measure,  it  is  far  from  my  in- 
tention to  propose  that  the  state  troops  should  at  any  time 
during  the  war  be  withheld  from  aiding  the  national  and 
neighbouring  state  forces  in  the  common  defence ;  but  to 
increase  the  strength  of  those  corps,  and  particularly  to 
apply  that  body  of  men  to  our  own  defence,  should  our 
frontier  at  any  future  time  be  unhappily  abandoned. 

"Nor  will  it  be  understood  that  whilst  I  feel  it  my  duty 
to  recommend  the  necessary  preparation  for  arraying  every 
description  of  constitutional  and  military  force  which  may 
be  proper  for  our  defence,  that  I  wish  to  urge  a  step  which 
may  interfere  with  any  liberal  measure  which  the  general 
government  may  take  for  the  same  object. 

"  To  the  general  government  we  must  and  ought  to  look 
for  our  security  ;  and  I  trust  that  the  time  will  come  when 
a  full  knowledge  of  our  resources  will  place  the  safety  of 
our  sea-coast  on  that  naval  defence  which  alone  is  capable 
of  giving  it  complete  security. 

"Although  it  has  been  thought  correct  in  this  state,  on 
ordinary  occasions,  for  the  state  government  to  leave  the 
national  councils  to  pursue  their  own  measures  without 
interference,  yet  I  submit  to  your  consideration  whether 
this  is  not  an  occasion  on  which  that  principle  should  be 
dispensed  with,  and  whether  it  is  not  proper  that  the  gene^ 
ral  assembly  should,  by  a  plain  and  decisive  address  to  the 
President,  express  their  own  opinion  and  that  of  their  con-^ 
stituents  on  the  important  questions  which  have  recently 
occurred. 

^'It  is  certainly  necessary  that  the  public  opinion  should 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  267 

be  known  by  the  President  on  the  question  of  war  ;  and  it 
is  presumed,  when  expressed  by  the  legislature  of  a  state, 
it  will  be  respected. 

"Whatever  events,  however,  may  take  place,  you  may 
be  satisfied  that  the  faithful  preservation  of  the  public 
peace,  a  rigid  and  prompt  execution  of  the  laws  under 
which  we  happily  live,  and  which  form  our  security,  to- 
gether with  a  strict  adherence  to  our  form  of  government 
and  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  will  compose 
the  basis  of  the  administration  of  government  in  this  state. 

"Trusting,  gentlemen,  that  the  God  of  our  fathers  will 
not  desert  us  on  this  occasion,  and  that  our  safety  is  in 
Him,  I  have  only  to  implore  his  guidance  in  all  our  pro- 
ceedings, and  his  smiles  on  all  our  deliberations. 

"  Roger  Griswold. 

^^  Extra  Session,  4th  Tuesday  of  August,  1812." 

This  message  was  accompanied  by  the  correspondence 
between  the  United  States  officers,  civil  and  military,  to 
which  reference  has  been  made,  and  extracts  from  which 
have  been  copied ;  and  thus  the  whole  was  placed  before 
the  legislature  of  that  state  for  their  consideration.  These 
documents  were  referred  to  a  joint  committee  of  the  two 
houses,  who  made  a  long  and  able  report  on  the  general 
subject,  and  concluded  by  recommending  the  following 
resolution — 

I  "  Resolved,  that  the  conduct  of  his  excellency  the  go- 
vernor, in  refusing  to  order  the  militia  of  this  state  into 
the  service  of  the  United  States,  on  the  requisition  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  and  Major-General  Dearborn,  meets 
with  the  entire  approbation  of  this  assembly." 

This  resolution  was  adopted  and  passed  by  both  houses. 
The  general  assembly  also,  in  pursuance  of  the  suggestion 
in  the  executive  message,  united  at  the  same  session  in  a 
declaration,  in  which  they  say,  that  "they  believe  it  to  be 
the  deliberate  and  solemn  sense  of  the  people  of  the  state,'* 


268  HISTORY    OF   THE 

that  *'  the  war  was  unnecessary."  /The  following  passage 
is  extracted  from  the  abovementioned  document — 

"To  the  United  States  is  delegated  the  power  to  call 
forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws,  to  suppress  insurrec- 
tion, and  repel  invasion.  To  the  states  respectively  is 
reserved  the  entire  controul  of  the  militia,  except  in  the 
cases  specified.  In  this  view  of  that  important  provision 
of  the  constitution,  the  legislature  fully  accord  with  the  de- 
cision of  his  excellency  the  governor  in  refusing  to  comply 
with  the  requisition  of  the  general  government  for  a  por- 
tion of  the  militia.  While  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  any 
difference  of  opinion  on  that  subject  should  have  arisen, 
the  conduct  of  the  chief  magistrate  of  this  state,  in  main- 
taining its  immunities  and  privileges,  meets  our  cordial 
approbation.  The  legislature  also  entertain  no  doubt  that 
the  militia  of  the  state  will,  under  the  direction  of  the  cap- 
tain-general, be  ever  ready  to  perform  their  duty  to  the 
state  and  nation  in  peace  or  war.  They  are  aware  that 
in  a  protracted  war,  the  burden  upon  the  militia  may  be- 
come almost  insupportable,  as  a  spirit  of  acquisition  and 
extension  of  territory  appears  to  influence  the  councils  of 
the  nation,  which  may  require  the  employment  of  the 
whole  regular  forces  of  the  United  States  in  foreign  con- 
quest, and  leave  our  maritime  frontier  defenceless,  or  to 
be  protected  solely  by  the  militia  of  the  states. 

"  At  this  period  of  anxiety  among  all  classes  of  citizens, 
we  learn  with  pleasure  that  a  prominent  cause  of  the  war 
is  removed  by  a  late  measure  of  the  British  cabinet.  The 
revocation  of  the  orders  in  council,  it  is  hoped,  will  be  met 
by  a  sincere  spirit  of  conciliation  on  the  part  of  our  admi- 
nistration, and  speedily  restore  to  our  nation  the  blessings 
of  a  solid  and  honourable  j)eace." 

\  Almost  immediately  after  the  close  of  this  session  of 
the  general  assembly  of  Connecticut,  an  election  of  mem- 
bers of  the  house  of  representatives  of  that  state  occurred, 
when  the  returns  showed,  as  far  as  evidence  of  public 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  269 

opinion  can  be  derived  from  such  a  source,  that  the  people 
of  the  state,  by  a  very  large  majority,  approved  the  course 
pursued  by  the  governor  and  council  with  regard  to  the 
militia,  and  the  measures  adopted  by  the  legislature  at 
the  extra  session  in  the  preceding  month  of  August.  The 
parties  in  the  house  stood— Federahsts  163,  IJemocrats  36 
— leaving  a  majority  of  Federalists  of  127.     / 

At  the  regular  session,  which  was  held  in  October  fol- 
lowing, an  act  was  passed  to  establish  a  military  corps  for 
the  defence  of  the  state.  By  it,  the  commander  in  chief 
of  the  state  was  authorised  to  raise,  by  voluntary  enlist- 
ments, a  military  corps  for  the  defence  and  protection  of 
the  state,  to  suppress  insurrections  and  repel  invasion,  and 
compel  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  and  of  the 
United  States,  to  consist  of  two  regiments  of  infantry,  four 
companies  of  artillery,  and  four  troops  of  horse,  to  serve 
during  the  war,  unless  sooner  discharged  by  law. 

This  act  of  the  legislature  was  carried  into  effect,  and 
a  corps  of  about  two  thousand  men  was  raised  under  it 
who  were  completely  officered  and  equipped,  and  in  the' 
course  of  the  war  performed  very  essential  services  to  the 
United  States,  as  well  as  to  the  state  to  which  they  be- 
longed. 

In  July,  1812,  the  governor  of  Massachusetts  issued  a 
general  order  to  the  militia  of  that  state,  in  which,  after 
some  preliminary  remarks  on  the  state  of  the  country,  and 
directing  that  the  detachment  often  thousand  men  should 
be  completed  without  delay—it  is  added,— that  as  that 
body  of  men,  being  to  be  raised  throughout  the  state,  could 
not  be  assembled  to  repel  a  sudden  invasion,  and  it  would 
be  extremely  burdensome  to  keep  them  constantly  in  ser- 
vice, and  if  they  were  assembled,  they  would  not  be  ade- 
quate to  the  defence  of  the  exposed  points  on  a  coast  of 
several  hundred  miles  in  extent,-it  was  ordered  that  the 
officers  of  the  whole  militia  of  the  state  hold  themselves, 
and  the  mihtia  under  their  command,  in  constant  readiness 


270  HISTORY    OF    THE 

to  assemble,  and  march  to  any  part  or  parts  of  the  state. 

Congress  assembled  at  Washington  on  the  4th  of  No- 
vember, 1812.  In  the  message  to  the  houses  on  that  oc- 
casion, the  disputes  with  the  New-England  states  relative 
to  the  militia  were  referred  to  in  the  following  manner  : — 

'*  Among  the  incidents  to  the  measures  of  the  war,  I  am 
constrained  to  advert  to  the  refusal  of  the  governors  of 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  to  furnish  the  required 
detachments  of  militia  towards  the  defence  of  the  maritime 
frontier.  The  refusal  was  founded  on  a  novel  and  unfortu- 
nate exposition  of  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  relating 
to  the  militia.  The  correspondences  which  will  be  before 
you,  contain  the  requisite  information  on  the  subject.  It 
is  obvious  that  if  the  authority  of  the  United  States  to  call 
into  service  and  command  the  militia  for  the  public  defence, 
can  be  thus  frustrated,  even  in  a  state  of  declared  war,  and 
of  course  under  apprehensions  of  invasion  preceding  war, 
they  are  not  one  nation  for  the  purpose  most  of  all  requir- 
ing it ;  and  that  the  public  safety  may  have  no  other  re- 
source, than  in  those  large  and  permanent  military  esta- 
blishments which  are  forbidden  by  the  principles  of  our 
free  government,  and  against  the  necessity  of  which  the 
militia  were  meant  to  be  a  constitutional  bulwark." 

This  part  of  the  message,  which  wears  somewhat  the 
appearance  of  a  denunciation,  was  referred  to  a  committee 
of  the  Senate,  of  which  William  B.  Giles,  of  Virginia,  was 
chairman,  whose  feelings  were  strongly  in  favour  of  the 
administration,  and  in  support  of  their  measures,  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  war.  That  this  gentleman,  from  the  pecu- 
liarity of  his  temper,  as  well  as  the  feelings  and  sentiments 
entertained  by  him,  would  gladly  have  seized  this  opportu- 
nity to  manifest  his  animosity  against  the  New-England 
politicians,  no  one  acquainted  with  him  can  doubt.  But 
after  keeping  the  subject  before  the  committee  during  the 
whole  session,  it  was  suffered  to  pass  away  without  any 
report,  or  even  the  recommendation  of  a  resolution  of  cen- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  271 

sure  upon  the  course  pursued  by  the  governments  of  the 
New-England  states. 

And  it  is  apparent,  from  the  language  of  the  message 
itself,  that  the  President  found  some  difficulty  in  placing 
the  subject  in  a  satisfactory  manner  before  the  national 
legislature.  It  says,  "  the  refusal  of  the  governors  of  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Connecticut  to  furnish  the  required  detach- 
ments of  militia  towards  the  defence  of  the  maritime  fron- 
tier, was  founded  on  a  novel  and  unfounded  exposition  of 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution  relating  to  the  militia,''^  If 
the  exposition  given  by  those  governors  was  novel,  it  was 
probably  owing  to  the  fact,  that  no  such  call  for  the  mili- 
tia had  previously  been  made.  Being  made  under  such 
circumstances,  it  must  necessarily  have  been  novel.  That 
it  was  unfortunate,  depends  upon  the  question  whether  it 
was  sound,  and»conformable  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
constitution  ?  If  such  was  its  character,  however  unfortu- 
nate it  may  have  been  for  the  policy  of  the  administration, 
or  the  objects  they  had  in  view,  it  must  be  considered  as 
quite  otherwise  for  the  country,  and  emphatically  so  for 
the  militia — which  will  be  allowed  to  be  objects  of  much 
higher  moment  than  the  views  or  the  popularity  of  any 
individuals  for  the  time  entrusted  with  the  administration 
of  the  government. 

The  militia  are  composed  of  the  whole  male  inhabitants 
of  the  states,  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  forty-five — 
that  is,  of  the  active  physical  force  of  the  union.  They 
are  the  inhabitants  of  the  states  in  which  they  reside,  and 
they  belong  to  the  several  states.  By  the  second  section 
of  the  second  article  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
it  is  provided  that — "  The  President  shall  be  commander 
in  chief  of  the  navy  and  army  of  the  United  States,  and 
of  the  militia  of  the  several  states,  when  called  into  the 
actual  service  of  the  United  States."  Here  the  militia 
are  described,  in  the  constitution  itself,  as  belonging  to  the 
several  states,  and  the  national  government  have  no  autho- 


272  HISTORY    OF    THE 

rity  over  them,  beyond  that  which  the  several  states  have 
relinquished  to  them  in  the  constitution.  Any  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  national  government,  or  of  the  President, 
to  exercise  such  authority  beyond  that  granted  to  them  in 
the  constitution,  would  be  usurpation,  and  would  render 
the  individuals  exercising  it  liable  to  the  consequences  of 
an  usurpation  of  power. 

The  only  cases  mentioned  in  the  constitution,  in  which 
the  congress  have  the  power  to  call  the  militia  of  the  states 
into  their  service,  are  "  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union, 
suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions."  These  are 
cases  in  which  the  existence  of  the  government  and  the 
safety  of  the  country  are  in  danger,  and  to  preserve  them 
this  extraordinary  power  was  vested  in  the  national  go- 
vernment. But  aware  of  the  danger  that  might  arise  in 
placing  the  whole  military  force  of  the  country  under  the 
command  of  the  national  executive,  it  was  wisely  and  pru- 
dently, and  it  may  be  added,  fortunately  provided,  that  the 
appointment  of  the  officers  of  the  militia  should  be  reserv- 
ed to  the  states  respectively.  By  this  reservation,  the  in- 
dividual states  were  secured  against  the  danger  of  having 
their  own  military  forces  taken  from  under  their  own  im- 
mediate authority  and  controul,  and  placed  under  the  com- 
mand of  men  who,  if  so  disposed,  might  turn  them  against 
the  governments  to  which  they  belonged,  and  the  commu- 
nities of  which  they  formed  a  part,  and  thus  subvert  and 
destroy  their  freedom  and  independence.  It  was  manifest- 
ly the  object  of  President  Madison,  when  he  called  upon 
the  governors  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  for  their 
quotas  of  militia,  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  April  lOth, 
1812,  to  take  them  away  from  their  own  officers,  appointed 
under  state  authority,  and  put  them  under  the  command 
of  United  States  officers,  because,  as  has  been  shown,  he 
took  care  in  the  call  upon  the  first  of  those  magistrates, 
to  designate  no  officer  of  the  rank  which  the  number  of 
troops  required  ;  and  in  the  call  upon  the  second  of  them, 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  273 

to  designate  no  officer  of  any  rank,  but  to  order  the  men 
to  be  placed  immediately  under  the  command  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  officers  in  the  garrisons  at  New-London  and 
New-Haven.     That  such  was  his  object  appears  to  be 
clear  and  unquestionable,  not  only  from  the  circumstances 
alread}'  alluded  to,  but  from  the  language  of  the  message 
above  recited.     It  is  there  said — "  It  is  obvious  that  if  the 
authority  of  the  United  States  to  call  into  service  and  com- 
mand the  militia  for  the  public  defence,  can  be  thus  frus- 
trated, even  in  a  state  of  declared  war,  and  of  course  under 
apprehensions  of  invasion  preceding  war,  they  are  not  one 
nation  for  the  purpose  most  of  all  requiring  it."     The  ob- 
ject was  not  only  to  call  the  militia  into  service,  but  into 
the  command  of  the  United  States.     A  defeat  in  the  at- 
tempt to  accomplish  these  objects.  President  Madison  says, 
would   show  that  the  United  States  were  not  one  nation 
for  the  purpose  most  of  all  requiring  it.     "In  such  a  state 
of  things,"  be  adds,  "the  public  safety  may  have  no  other 
resource  than  in  those  large  and  permanent  military  esta- 
blishments which  are  forbidden  by  the   principles  of  our 
free  government,  and  against  the  necessity  of  which  the 
militia  were  meant  to  be  a  constitutional  bulwark."  What 
is  meant  by  the  expression  of  "  apprehensions  of  invasion 
preceding  war,^^   is  not  very  apparent.     The  constitution 
.contains  no  provision  for  calling  forth  the  militia,  in  the 
case  of  "  apprehension  rf  invasion  preceding  war."     The 
language  of  that  instrument  is  "  to  repel  invasion."     It 
does  not  require   a  military  force  to   repel  an   invasion 
which  exists  only  in  the  fears  or  imagination  of  an  indivi- 
dual, even  if  that  individual  should  be  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  government ;   and  above  all  things,  when  such  an 
invasion  is  apprehended  before  war  takes  place. 

As  it  regards  the  militia,  no  doubt  can  be  entertained 
by  those  who  are  uninfluenced  by  party  feelings  or  selfish 
interests,  the  conduct  of  the  governors  of  .Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  will^be  considered  as  of  the  highest  im- 

35 


274  HISTORY    OF   THE 

portance.     The  duties  of  the  militia  of  the  several  state* 
to  the  United  States,  are  described  in  the  clause  of  the 
constitution  which  has  been  quoted.     They  are  fewy  and 
easily  understood.     When  there  occurs,  in  any  portion  of 
the  Union,  such  a  degree  of  resistance  to  the  execution  of 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  as  cannot  be  overcome  by 
the  ordinary  means  which  the  laws  provide,  it  te  Xhe  duty 
of  the  national  government  to  call  forth  the  militia  l;o  en- 
force that  execution.     In  the  event  of  a  domestic  insur- 
rection against  the  government,  which  is  too  formidable  to 
be  quelled  in  any  other  mode,  resort  must  be  had  to  the 
militia  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  object.     And  when 
the  country  is  invaded  by  a  foreign  enemy,  upon  a  con- 
stitutional call  from  the  national  government,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  militia  to  repair  to  the  place  where  the  hostile  in- 
road has  occurred,  and  repel  the  invader.     Beyond  these 
specific  services,  the  United  States  have  not,  and  cannot 
have,  any  claim  upon  the  militia   for   military  services. 
But  there  is  nothing  in  the  constitution  that  implies  a 
power  in  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  call  the 
militia  into  the  field,  when  there  are  in  his  mind  apprehen- 
sions of  an  invasion  by  a  foreign  nation,  preceding  war» 
Much  less  is  there  any  authority  in  the  constitution  to  take 
the  militia  from  their  homes,  and  away  from  their  officers, 
shut  them  up  in  garrisons,  under  the  command  of  United 
States  officers,  subject  to  the  services  and  the  duties  of  a 
standing  army,  and  liable  to  the  provisions  and  penalties 
of  the   "Rules   and  Articles  of  War."     If  there  is  any 
thing  valuable  in  being  secured  against  any  future  attempt 
to  exercise  this  unconstitutional  power  over  the  militia,  if 
there  is  any  gratification  to  the  minds  of  free  citizens  of  a 
free  republic,  in  being  exempt  from  all  liability  to  the  de 
gradation  of  being  forced  into  a  standing  army,  and  held 
in  bondage  under  the  despotic  government  which  always 
controuls  and  regulates  standing  armies,  they  will  be  in- 
debted for  these  privileges  and  this  security  to  the  firm, 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  275 

independent,  dignified  stand  taken  by  those  virtuous  and 
upright  New-England  magistrates. 

On  the  2d  of  August,  1812,  the  United  States  frigate 
Constitution,  commanded  by  Captain  Isaac  Hull,  sailed 
on  a  cruise  from  the  harbour  of  Boston.  On  the  19th  of 
that  month  he  fell  in  with  the  British  frigate  Guerriere, 
Captain  Dacres,  and  after  a  short  but  severe  engagement 
captured  her.  This  brilliant  achievement,  as  was  perfectly 
natural,  caused  great  exultation  throughout  the  country, 
and  particularly  among  the  friends  of  the  administration  ; 
and  much  merit  was  claimed  on  their  behalf  for  such  a 
splendid  victory  over  the  "Empress  of  the  ocean."  No 
l)erson  probably  doubted  that  the  Constitution,  as  well  as 
others  of  our  ships  of  war,  had  been  ordered  to  cruise  in 
quest  of  the  enemy,  in  order  to  give  them  specimens  of 
our  skill  and  bravery  upon  their  favourite  element.  As 
far  as  can  be  ascertained,  no  such  orders  were  given,  cer- 
tainly in  the  case  of  the  abovementioned  vessel. 

At  the  time  when  war  was  declared,  the  Constitution 
lay  at  Annapolis  in  Maryland.  On  that  day,  the  following 
letter  was  addressed  from  the  Navy  Department  to  Captain 
Hull— 

*'  Navy  Department,  18th  of  June,  1812. 

"  This  day  war  has  been  declared  between  the  United 
empire  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  and  their  dependencies, 
and  the  United  States  of  America,  and  their  territories. 
And  you  are,  with  the  force  under  your  command,  entitled 
to  every  belligerent  right — to  attack,  and  capture,  and  to 
defend.  You  will  use  the  most  despatch  to  reach  New- York, 
after  you  have  made  up  your  complement  of  men,  &c.  at 
Annapolis.  In  your  way  from  thence,  you  will  not  fail  to 
notice  the  British  flag,  should  it  present  itself.  I  am  in- 
formed that  the  Belvidera  is  on  our  coast,  but  you  are  not 
to  understand  me  as  impelling  you  to  battle,  previously  to 
your  having  confidence  in  your  crew,  unless  attacked ;  or 


276  HISTORY   OF   THE 

with  a  reasonable  prospect  of  success,  of  which  you  arc 
to  be,  at  your  discretion,  the  judge. 

"You  are  to  reply  to  this,  and  inform  me  of  your 
progress. 

**P.  Hamilton. 

"  Captain  Hull,  of  the  United  States  Frigate  Constitution."     . 

On  the  3d  of  July,  1812,  the  following  letter  was  written 
to  Captain  Hull — 

''Navy  Department,  3d  July,  1812. 

*'  As  soon  as  the  Constitution  is  ready  for  sea,  you  will 
weigh  anchor,  and  proceed  to  New- York. 

"  If  on  your  way  thither,  3'ou  should  fall  in  with  an 
enemy's  vessel,  you  will  be  guided  in  your  proceedings  by 
your  own  judgment,  bearing  in  mind  however,  that  you 
are  not  voluntarily  to  encounter  a  force  superior  to  your 
own.  On  your  arrival  at  New- York,  you  will  report  your- 
self to  Commodore  Rodgers.  If  he  should  not  be  in  that 
port,  you  will  remain  there  till  further  orders. 

*'P.  Hamilton. 

"Captain  Isaac  Hull,  Annapolis." 

These  orders  extended  no  further  than  to  sailing  the 
Constitution  from  Annapolis  to  New- York  ;  and  great  care 
is  taken  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  let  Captain  Hall 
understand,  that  upon  the  passage  to  the  latter  port, 
he  must  act  upon  his  own  discretion,  if  he  should  fall  in 
with  any  British  vessels — that  he  was  not  to  be  understood 
as  impelling  Captain  Hull  to  battle,  previously  to  having 
confidence  in  his  crew,  unless  attacked;  that  he  must  act  upon 
his  own  judgment,  at  the  same  time  not  voluntarily  to  en- 
counter a  force  superior  to  his  oivn.  Here  is  certainly  a 
praise-worthy  degree  of  precaution,  manifested  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  against  risk  and  responsibility, 
but  no  encouragement  to  fighting.  That  any  further  or- 
ders were  given  to  Captain  Hull,  between  the  3d  of  July 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  277 

and  the  2d  of  August,  is  hardly  to  be  supposed.  If  there 
were  such,  they  can  be  produced.  If  there  were  not,  all 
the  credit  of  this  gallant  exploit  is  due  to  Captain  Hull, 
and  not  the  slightest  portion  of  it  to  the  administration. 

No  special  credit,  however,  was  ever  given  to  that  brave 
and  meritorious  officer,  on  the  score  of  his  having  gone 
upon  this  enterprise  upon  his  own  responsibility,  and  with- 
out the  orders  of  the  government.  A  satisfactory  reason 
may  be  given  for  this  reserve  on  the  part  of  the  latter  on 
this  subject.  The  Constitution  having  sailed  without  or- 
ders, had  she  been  unsuccessful,  the  misfortune  would  have 
been  justly  ascribed  to  the  rashness  of  her  commander; 
if  successful,  the  country  would  of  course  suppose  that  she 
had  been  ordered  by  the  government  on  the  cruise,  and  the 
glory  of  the  victory  would  redound  to  their  credit,  as  well 
as  to  that  of  the  officers  and  crew. 

This  sketch  of  the  manner  in  which  the  government  of 
the  United  States  commenced  their  warlike  operations  in 
the  eastern  states,  will  satisfy  any  person  that  it  was  not 
calculated  to  render  the  war,  or  the  administration,  popular 
in  that  portion  of  the  Union.  The  plan  of  removing  the 
United  States  troops  from  the  Atlantic  coast,  in  order  to 
march  them  to  the  frontiers  of  Canada,  and  thus  leave  the 
inhabitants  for  several  hundred  miles  upon  the  coast  ex- 
posed to  the  horrors  of  invasion,  could  not,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  reconcile  them  to  a  war  which  they  originally 
considered  unnecessary  and  extremely  impolitic.  The 
result  of  the  choice  of  representatives  for  the  state  legisla- 
ture in  Connecticut,  in  September,  1812,  showed  what  was 
the  tone  of  public  feeling  in  that  state.  Governor  Gris- 
wold  died  during  the  October  session  of  the  general  assem- 
bly, and  of  course  was  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  human 
applause  or  censure,  for  the  share  he  had  borne  in  the 
transactions  which  have  been  alluded  to.  But  the  votes 
of  the  freemen  of  that  state,  during  the  remainder  of  the 
war,  showed,  in  the  most  conclusive  manner,  their  decided 


278  HISTORY    OF   THE 

approbation  of  the  measures  he  had  recommended,  and 
the  course  he  had  pursued,  for  the  security  of  the  mihtia, 
and  for  the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  the  state. 

And  such  also  was  the  state  of  things  in  Massachusetts. 
In  1812,  at  an  election  which  was  held  more  than  two 
months  before  the  declaration  of  war.  Governor  Strong 
was  chosen  by  a  majority  of  1,370  votes  only.  In  1813, 
he  received  a  majority  of  13,974.  In  1814,  though  op- 
posed by  a  federalist  of  distinguished  talents  and  charac- 
ter, his  majority  was  10,421.  In  October,  1814,  the 
house  of  representatives  of  the  state  legislature  passed  a 
resolution  approving  of  Governor  Strong's  conduct,  in  re- 
lation to  the  defence  of  the  state,*  by  a  vote  of  222  to  59. 
At  the  same  session,  a  resolution  authorising  the  governor 
to  raise  ten  thousand  men  for  the  defence  of  the  state, 
passed  the  same  body  by  a  vote  of  252  to  71. 

In  the  month  of  June,  1813,  a  detachment  of  ships  from 
the  United  States  navy,  consisting  of  the  frigates  United 
States  and  Macedonian,  and  the  sloop  of  war  Hornet, 
under  the  command  of  Commodore  Decatur,  in  attempt- 
ing to  pass  through  Long  Island  Sound  to  the  ocean, 
found  a  British  squadron  at  the  entrance  into  the  Sound, 
of  such  force  that  it  became  necessary  for  the  former  to 
take  refuge  in  New-London  harbour.  As  the  garrisons  in 
and  near  that  port  were  not  sufficient  to  resist  the  British 
squadron  on  that  station,  strong  apprehensions  were  en- 
tertained that  the  latter  would  force  their  way  into  the 
harbour,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  United  States 
ships.  Those  ships,  by  way  of  precaution,  were  moved  up 
the  river  Thames,  several  miles  above  New-London ;  and 
application  was  immediately  made  to  Governor  Smith,  the 
successor  to  Governor  Griswold,  for  a  military  force  to 
defend  the  city  of  New-London,  and  to  protect  the  L^nited 
States  squadron.  Orders  were  issued  without  delay  for 
the  detachment  of  a  large  body  of  militia,  to  be  stationed 


HARTFORD    COJNVENTION.  279 

at  and  near  New-London.  This  detachment,  drawn  partly 
from  the  troops  raised  for  the  defence  of  the  state,  and 
the  residue  from  the  militia,  were  speedily  in  the  field,  and 
were  placed  under  the  command  of  Major-General  Wil- 
liams of  the  militia ;  and  from  that  time  until  the  depar- 
ture of  the  squadron  fr.om  the  harbour  of  New-London, 
which  was  not  until  after  the  peace,  a  large  military  force 
was  kept  in  service  by  the  state,  for  the  security  of  the 
United  States  ships  of  war  blockaded  at  New-London. 

During  the  year  1813,  Brigadier  General  Burbeck,  of 
the  United  States  army,  commanded  in  the  '*  military  dis- 
trict," in  which  Connecticut  was  included.  This  means 
that  he  resided  as  titular  commander  of  a  certain  portion 
of  country  which  for  the  occasion  was  called  a  "  military 
district,"  but  in  which  the  United  States  had  very  few 
troops, — the  appointment  having  been,  beyond  a  doubt,  for 
the  purpose  of  having  a  United  States  officer  on  the  spot, 
to  take  the  command  of  the  militia  whenever  they  might 
be  ordered  into  the  service  of  the  nation.  No  difficulty, 
however,  occurred  during  that  year,  between  General 
Williams  and  General  Burbeck  on  the  score  of  precedence ; 
and  at  the  close  of  the  year,  the  expenses  of  the  campaign 
were  allowed  and  paid  by  the  United  States. 

In  1814,  General  Burbeck  having  been  removed  to  ano- 
ther station,  the  command  at  New-London  was  placed  in 
the  hands  of  Brigadier-General  Gushing.  The  harbour  of 
New-London  was  still  blockaded,  and  the  United  States' 
squadron  still  required  protection.  In  the  month  of  April, 
a  body  of  sailors  and  marines  from  the  British  fleet  in  the 
Sound,  entered  Connecticut  river,  and  landed  at  a  village 
in  the  town  of  Say  brook,  a  few  miles  above  the  mouth  of 
the  river,  where  they  destroyed  a  considerable  number  of 
merchant  vessels,  which  were  there  laid  up,  and  retreated 
before  any  force  was  brought  to  attack  or  resist  them.  At 
this  time  Long-Island  Sound  was  under  the  absolute  con- 
troul  of  the  British  cruizers.     In  August  following,  an  at- 


280  HISTORY   OF   THE 

tack  was  made  upon  Stonington,  the  easternmost  town  in 
Connecticut,  bordering  on  the  sea-shore,  by  a  number  of 
British  armed  ships  under  the  command  of  Commodore 
Hardy,  which  was  repulsed  with  great  gallantry  by  a  small 
body  of  militia,  hastily  assembled  there  for  the  purpose. 
This  movement  of  the  enemy  excited  strong  apprehen- 
sions for  the  safety  of  the  squadron  in  the  Thames ;  and  a 
call  was  forthwith  made  by  General  Cushing  upon  Gover- 
nor Smith  for  a  detachment  of  militia  for  its  security. 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1814,  the  following  circular  was 
addressed  to  the  governors  of  several  of  the  states — 

*♦  War  Department,  July  14th,  1814. 

"  Sir, — The  late  pacification  in  Europe,  offers  to  the 
enemy  a  large  disposable  force,  both  naval  and  military, 
and  with  it  the  means  of  giving  to  the  war  here,  a  charac- 
ter of  new  and  increased  activity  and  extent. 

"Without  knowing  with  certainty  that  such  will  be  its 
application,  and  still  less  that  any  particular  points  will 
become  the  objects  of  attack,  the  President  has  deemed  it 
advisable,  as  a  measure  of  precaution,  to  strengthen  our- 
selves on  the  line  of  the  Atlantic,  and  (as  the  principal 
means  of  doing  this  will  be  found  in  the  militia)  to  invite 
the  executive  of  certain  states  to  organize  and  hold  in  rea- 
diness, for  immediate  service,  a  corps  of  93,500  men, 
under  the  laws  of  February,  1795,  and  the  16th  of  April, 
1814. 

"  The  enclosed  detail  will  show  your  excellency  what, 
under  this  requisition,  will  be, the  quota  of 

"  As  far  as  uniform  volunteer  companies  can  be  found, 
they  will  be  preferred. 

"  The  expediency  of  regarding  (as  well  as  in  the  desig- 
nations of  the  militia  as  of  their  places  of  rendezvous)  the 
points,  the  importance  or  the  exposure  of  which  will  be 
most  likely  to  attract  the  views  of  the  enemy,  need  but  be 
suggested. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  281 

"*^  A  report  of  the  organization  of  your  quota,  when  com- 
pleted, and  of  its  place  or  places  of  rendezvous,  will  be 
acceptable. 

*^  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  <fcc. 

*'  John  Armstrong.'* 
■"  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of ." 

*'  Detail  of  militia  service,  under  the  requisition  of  July 
4th,  1814.  Connecticut,  3  regiments,  viz.  300  artillery, 
2,700  infantry,  total  3,000.  General  staff,  1  Major  Gene- 
ral, 1  Brigadier  General,  1  Deputy  Quartermaster  Gene- 
ral, 1  Assistant  Adjutant  General." 

By  this  order  from  the  War  Department,  it  appears  that 
3,000  men  were  considered  as  forming  a  division,  or  in 
other  words,  a  Major  General's  command.  This  would 
of  course  make  1,500  a  brigade,  or  Brigadier  General's 
command.  The  requisition  from  General  Gushing,  upon 
Governor  Smith,  was  for  seventeen  hundred  of  the  three 
thousand  men  specified  in  the  official  call  from  the  Secre- 
tary of  War — ^outnumbering  a  brigade,  and  therefore 
having  a  legal  claim  to  be  commanded  by  a  Major  Gene- 
ral ; — and  this  more  especially  as  there  was  but  one  Bri- 
gadier General  detailed  in  that  order.  Doubtless  Brigadier 
General  Gushing  believed  that  no  officer  of  higher  rank 
than  himself  was  necessary,  and  therefore  took  care  in  his 
requisition,  not  to  call  for  any  officer  who  should  take  rank 
above  himself.  In  the  course  of  the  summer,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  alarm  produced  by  the  hostile  operations  of 
the  British,  other  detachments  of  the  militia  were  ordered 
to  various  other  points,  until  the  whole  number  in  the  ser- 
vice amounted  to  twenty-three  or  twenty-four  hundred 
men.  This  was  considerably  larger  than  that  of  the  pre- 
ceding year.  Being  therefore  warranted  in  the  measure 
by  the  example  of  1813,  when  the  whole  number  of  men 
was  smaller,  and   by  the  conduct  of  the  national  govern^ 


282  HISTORY   OF   THE 

ment  in  paying  the  troops  of  that  year,  as  well  as  by  the 
large  body  of  men  in  the  field,  a  Major  General  was  ordered 
to  take  the  command.  And  when,  in  addition  to  these  consi- 
derations, it  is  recollected  that  all,  or  nearly  all  the  ex- 
pense of  both  years  was  incurred  in  defence  of  the  national 
property  vested  in  Decatur's  squadron,  no  person  could 
have  suspected  that  so  material  a  distinction  could  have 
been  drawn  between  the  cases,  as  that^  the  expenses  of 
one  year  would  have  been  paid  without  hesitation,  and 
those  of  the  other  peremptorily  refused.  Such,  however, 
was  the  fact ;  and  the  state  was  left,  after  all  the  burdens 
which  had  been  thrown  upon  them  by  a  war,  the  justice  of 
which  they  questioned,  and  the  policy  of  which  they  en- 
tirely condemned,  to  provide  for  the  support  of  the  whole 
body  of  militia  ordered  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  and  essentially  for  the  security  of  their  ships  of 
war,  during  the  year  1814.  The  change  of  conduct  in  the 
government  of  the  United  States  on  the  foregoing  subject, 
may  perhaps  be  accounted  for,  at  least  in  part,  by  the  oc- 
currence of  peace  just  after  the  rinse  of  the  year  1814. 
The  intelligence  that  peace  had  been  concluded,  relieved 
them  from  all  apprehensions  of  further  embarrassments 
from  the  continuance  of  hostilities  ;  and  this  afforded  an 
opportunity  for  the  administration  to  manifest  their  re- 
sentment for  the  measures  pursued  in  the  New-England 
states,  on  the  subject  of  the  war,  and  particularly  in  re- 
gard to  the  militia. 

In  the  year  1817  agents  were  appointed  by  the  state  of 
Massachusetts,  to  present  the  claim  of  that  state  for  a  re- 
muneration for  the  expenditure  which  had  been  incurred 
for  the  various  detachments  of  militia  for  the  defence  of 
the  state,  during  the  war.  After  alluding  to  the  call  by 
General  Dearborn,  in  1812,  which  has  already  been  ad- 
verted to,  those  agents,  in  the  representation  accompany- 
ing their  claim,  remark — 

"  The  next  request  received  by  the  governor,  was  in 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  283 

July,  1814,  when  the  probability  of  attack  having  increas- 
ed, the  general  requested  eleven  hundred  men  might  be 
ordered  out  for  the  defence  of  the  more  exposed  parts  of 
the  sea-coast — this  order  was  complied  with,  the  troops 
placed  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
service  performed  ;  part  of  the  said  troops,  to  the  number 
requested  by  General  Dearborn,  having  been  stationed  at 
Castine  and  Machias,  prior  to  the  capture  of  those  places^ 
by  the  enemy. 

"On  the  5th  of  September,  1814,  General  Dearborn 
again  made  a  requisition  on  the  governor  of  Massachusetts, 
for  a  body  of  militia,  when  the  general  order  No.  2,  here- 
with presented,  was  issued  on  the  6th  of  the  same  month, 
and  every  measure  taken  to  guard  against  the  attacks  of 
the  enemy, — a  considerable  body  of  the  elite  of  the  mili- 
tia from  the  interior,  was  ordered  into  immediate  service, 
and  marched  and  encamped  on  the  sea-board,  and  the 
whole  of  the  militia  were  enjoined  to  hold  themselves  in 
constant  readiness,  and  were  called  upon  '  by  every  motive 
of  the  love  of  country,  of  honour,  and  sympathy  for  their 
fellow-citizens,  who  might  be  suffering  the  perils  of  war, 
to  maintain  the  most  perfect  state  of  preparation,  and  to 
move  when  called  to  the  scene  "of  action  with  the  utmost 
celerity ;'  but  the  difficulties  which  had  arisen,  and  the 
complaints  that  had  been  made,  from  placing  the  militia 
in  the  immediate  service  of  the  United  States,  under  Uni- 
ted States  officers,  on  former  occasions,  had  been  such  as 
to  induce  the  belief,  it  would  be  inexpedient,  if  not  ha- 
zardous, to  repeat  the  order,  without  having  the  power  to 
enforce  it ;  an  arrangement  was,  however,  subsequently 
made  with  General  Dearborn,  to  place  part  of  the  militia 
in  the  forts  of  the  United  States  in  the  harbour  of  Boston, 
under  the  direction  of  his  son.  General  H.  A.  S.  Dearborn, 
and  the  very  efficient  body  of  troops  beforementioned,  were 
stationed  in  the  vicinity  of  the  forts. 

"  A  fourth  requisition  was  made  by  General  Dearborn 


284 


HISTORY    OF   THE 


to  guard  the  prisoners  at  Pittsfield,  but  the  same  causes 
as  in  the  other  case,  in  addition  to  the  belief,  that  in  the 
midst  of  a  thickly  settled  population,  the  danger  of  escape 
from  the  existing  guard,  or  of  insurrection,  did  not  require 
a  compliance  with  the  call — the  event  verified  the  sound- 
ness of  the  opinion. 

"  These  are  all  the  calls  for  the  militia  which  are  known 
to  have  been  made,  and  it  is  believed  it  can  be  shown,  that 
*the  omission  to  place  the  militia  in  the  service  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  was  a  matter  of  form  rather  than  of  fact — that 
the  protection  of  the  country  was  never  for  a  moment 
abandoned,  and  that  the  militia  were  assembled  and  in 
readiness  to  act,  whenever  emergencies  appeared  to  re- 
quire them,  that  the  arrangements  adopted  were  judicious^ 
and  in  several  instances  predicated  upon  the  wishes  of  the 
officers  of  the  United  States,  or  of  those  who  had  the  con- 
fidence of  the  general  government." — 

The  authorities  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  Tiave 
been  so  often  charged  with  having  refused  to  order  out 
the  militia  of  those  states,  upon  the  call  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  they  have  been  so  frequently  and 
so  loudly  reproached  for  this  conduct,  that  there  are  good 
reasons  for  believing  that  a  great  proportion  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  United  States,  and  especially  that  large  num- 
ber of  them  who  have  come  upon  the  stage  of  active  life 
since  the  close  of  the  war  of  1812,  have  been  fully  im- 
pressed with  the  idea  that  the  militia  of  those  states  were 
never  in  the  field  during  the  war,  but  were  entirely  with- 
held from  the  public  service.  The  facts  which  have  been 
stated  will  serve  to  remove  such  an  impression,  wherever 
it  may  exist.  The  mihtia  were  never  withheld  from  the 
public  service,  but  in  both  states,  when  the  exigencies  of 
the  times  required,  were  in  large  numbers  in  the  field. 
And  in  Connecticut,  they  were  not  merely  encamped  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  or  repelling  invasion,  but  they 
were  out  in  large  numbers,  for  two  successive  seasons,  for 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  285 

the  purpose  of  defending  the  property  of  the  United  States, 
and  preventing  the  destruction  of  the  squadron  of  armed 
ships  in  the  harbour  of  New-London.  The  refusal  of  the 
governors  of  those  states  to  order  out  the  mihtia,  at  the 
requisition  of  General  Dearborn,  in  1812,  was  on  widely 
different  ground.  That  ground  has  been  already  alluded 
to.  It  was  solely  because  an  attempt  was  made  to  take 
the  militia  away  from  their  own  officers,  and  to  place  them 
under  the  command  of  officers  of  the  United  States,  thus 
depriving  the  states  of  their  natural  defenders,  and  the 
militia  of  their  constitutional  right,  and  in  fact  incorpora- 
ting them  into  the  standing  army.  Probably  they  were 
induced  to  take  this  course,  by  a  wish  to  change  the  char- 
acter of  the  war  from  defensive  to  offensive ;  and  to  ac- 
complish this  object,  the  absurd  and  ridiculous  project  of 
attempting  to  conquer  the  Canadas  was  devised.  The 
result  proved,  that  the  character  of  the  war  was  not  easily 
altered.  The  first  campaigns  on  that  frontier,  showed  it 
to  be  as  truly  defensive  on  the  inland  frontier,  as  it  was 
upon  the  Atlantic  coast. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  mode  of  conducting  the  war 
that  was  in  the  slightest  degree  calculated  to  secure  the 
confidence  of  the  country,  and  especially  of  that  part  of 
it  where  it  was  the  most  unpopular.  Neither  the  plan  of 
general  operations,  nor  the  character  of  the  men  appointed 
to  carry  them  into  effect,  had  any  tendency  to  convince  the 
opponents  of  the  war,  that  it  would  prove  to  be  either  ho- 
nourable or  advantageous  to  the  United  States.  The  mili- 
tary operations  against  Upper  Canada,  which  was  the  first 
object  of  hostile  movements,  were  not  only  disastrous,  but 
in  the  highest  degree  disgraceful.  One  army,  with  its 
commander-in-chief,  was  captured  almost  without  firing  a 
shot ;  and  very  little  reputation  was  gained  the  first  season 
along  the  whole  line  of  the  inland  frontier. 

Instances  of  great  bravery  and  good  conduct  occasion- 
ally occurred ;  but  nothing  appeared  which  manifested  dis- 


286  HISTORY    OF   THE 

tinguished  military  talents,  skill,  or  experience.  In  the 
President's  message  at  the  opening  of  Congress  in  Novem- 
ber, 3812,  it  is  said — 

"With  these  blessings  [that  is  health,  plenty,  &c.]  are 
mingled  the  pressures  and  vicissitudes  incident  to  the  state 
of  war  into  which  the  United  States  have  been  forced,  by 
the  perseverance  of  a  foreign  power  in  its  system  of  injus- 
tice and  aggression. 

"Previous  to  its  declaration  it  was  deemed  proper,  as  a 
measure  of  precaution  and  forecast,  that  a  considerable 
force  should  be  placed  in  the  Michigan  territory,  with  a 
general  view  to  its  security,  and,  in  the  event  of  war,  such 
operations  in  the  uppermost  Canada  as  would  intercept 
the  hostile  influence  of  Great  Britain  over  the  savages, 
obtain  the  command  of  the  lake  on  which  that  part  of 
Canada  borders,  and  maintain  co-operating  relations  with 
such  forces  as  might  be  most  conveniently  employed  against 
other  parts.  Brigadier  General  Hull  was  charged  with 
this  provisional  service;  having  under  his  command  a  body 
of  troops,  composed  of  regulars,  and  of  volunteers  from 
the  state  of  Ohio.  Having  reached  his  destination  after 
his  knowledge  of  the  war,  and  possessing  discretionary 
authority  to  act  offensively,  he  passed  into  the  neiglibouring 
territory  of  the  enemy,  with  a  prospect  of  easy  and  victo- 
rious progress.  The  expedition  nevertheless  terminated 
unfortunately,  not  only  in  a  retreat  to  the  town  and  fort  of 
Detroit,  but  in  the  surrender  of  both,  and  of  the  gallant 
corps  commanded  by  that  officer.  The  causes  of  this  pain- 
ful reverse  will  be  investigated  by  a  military  tribunal. 

"  Our  expectation  of  gaining  the  command  of  the  lakes, 
by  the  invasion  of  Canada  from  Detroit,  having  been  dis- 
appointed, measures  were  instantly  taken  to  provide  on 
them  a  naval  force  superior  to  that  of  the  enemy.  From 
the  talents  and  activity  of  the  officer  charged  with  this 
object,  every  thing  that  can  be  done  may  be  expected. 
Should  the  present  season  not  admit  of  complete  success, 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  287 

the  progress  made  will  ensure  for  the  next  a  naval  ascen- 
dancy, where  it  is  essential  to  our  permanent  peace  with, 
and  control  over  the  savages." 

The  mortification  arising  from  the  disasters  on  the 
Canada  frontier,  were  in  some  measure  alleviated  by  the 
success  of  some  of  our  armed  ships  upon  the  ocean.  The 
victory  obtained  by  the  frigate  Constitution,  under  the 
command  of  Captain  Hull,  over  the  British  frigate  Guer- 
riere,  in  the  month  of  August-,  had  a  tendency  to  soothe 
the  irritable  feelings  of  the  administration,  as  well  as  those 
of  their  friends  who  were  ardently  devoted  to  the  prose- 
cution of  the  war.  Other  brilliant  achievements  at  sea 
occurred,  in  a  high  degree  honourable  to  our  naval  cha- 
racter ;  but  the  capture  of  a  few  armed  ships  was  calcu- 
lated rather  to  prolong,  than  to  shorten  the  contest ;  and 
to  heighten,  rather  than  allay  the  fears  of  the  states  upon 
the  sea-coast,  of  hostile  visits  and  depredations  from  the 
enemy. 

No  doubt  can  rest  on  any  mind,  that  the  government  of 
the  United  States  expected  to  make  a  serious  impression 
on  Great  Britain,  by  carrying  the  war  into  the  British 
provinces.  It  appears  by  the  above  quotation  from  the 
President's  message,  that  General  Hull  was  entrusted 
'*  with  discretionary  pov»^ers  to  act  offensively,"  and  that 
the  object  was  to  get  "the  command  of  the  lakes  by  the 
invasion  of  Canada  from  Detroit."  And  this  may  serve 
to  explain  the  reasons  why  orders  were  given  to  General 
Dearborn,  at  so  early  a  stage  of  the  war,  to  march  the 
regular  troops  away  from  the  Atlantic  coast  to  the  Canada 
frontier,  leaving  the  former  entirely  exposed  to  the  inva- 
sions of  the  enemy,  unless  repelled  by  the  forces  of  the 
individual  states  adjoining  that  coast.  Eventually  those 
invasions  were  made.  It  has  been  seen  that  Saybrook 
and  Stonington  in  Connecticut  were  the  subjects  of  them, 
and  attempts  were  made  to  effect  landings  at  other  places 
bordering  upon  Long  Island  Sound.     In  Massachusetts, 


288  HISTORY   OF   THE        ^ 

Castine,  Machias,  and  Eastport,  in  the  District  of  Maine, 
were  all  taken  possession  of  by  British  forces,  and  the 
adjoining-  country,  to  a  considerable  extent,  was  threat- 
ened with  subjugation,  and  of  course  was  kept  in  a  state 
of  great  alarm  and  apprehension. 

In  1814,  when  invasions  had  actually  occurred,  and  de- 
predations were  threatened  along  the  New-England  coast, 
and  those  states  were  left  to  depend  exclusively  upon  their 
own  means  of  defence,  while  the  burdens  arising  from  the 
military  arrangements  for  their  own  security  were  becom- 
ing more  and  more  severe,  at  such  a  moment,  when  the 
legal  pecuniary  demands  of  the  government  were  fully 
exacted,  the  supplies  and  pay  of  the  militia  were  with- 
drawn by  the  orders  of  the  national  government,  and  the 
whole  weight  of  supporting  them  was,  in  a  petulant  fit  of 
resentment,  thrown  upon  the  states,  l^y  this  time  defen- 
sive measures  had  become  absolutely  necessary,  not  only 
to  secure  the  property,  but  the  persons  of  the  inhabitants 
along  the  coast.  The  character  of  the  war,  whether  that 
war  was  originally  necessary  or  unnecessary,  just  or  un- 
just, had  ceased  to  be  an  object  of  discussion  or  considera- 
tion. The  inhabitants  of  the  states  where  the  declaration 
of  war  had  been  most  pointedly  condemned,  were  now 
placed  in  situations  where  considerations  of  a  different 
nature  came  home  with  full  force  to  their  circumstances 
and  feelings.  Self-defence,  the  protection  of  their  families 
and  fire-sides,  became  objects  of  immediate  and  pressing 
necessity  to  the  people  near  the  Atlantic  shore;  and  no 
sacrifices  of  a  pecuniary  nature,  or  of  personal  feeling, 
could  stand  in  the  way  of  individual  or  domestic  security. 

It  would  not  be  practicable,  without  far  transcending 
the  limits  of  this  work,  to  give  a  minute  and  circumstan- 
tial history  of  the  manner  in  which  the  military  operations 
in  the  New-England  states  were  conducted.  In  July, 
1813,  the  British  squadron  oflf  New-London  was  rein- 
forced by  the  addition  of  several  armed  vessels,  and  con- 


HARTFORI)  CONVENTION.  289 

sisted  of  two  ships  of  the  line,  two  frigates,  a  brig,  and  a 
number  of  transports*  This,  of  course,  excited  great 
alarm  among  the  inhabitants,  as  that  city  was  far  more 
exposed  to  an  attack  from  the  water,  than  the  ships  be- 
longing to  Decatur's  squadron.  On  the  first  week  in  July 
Governor  Smith  had  been  employed  in  detaching  a  body 
of  militia  to  New-London,  and  had  left  Hartford,  the  seat 
of  government,  for  his  residence  in  the  western  part  of  the 
state,  when  he  received  information  from  General  Bur- 
beck,  the  United  States  officer  commanding  at  New-Lon- 
don, informing  him  that  orders  had  been  received  from  the 
Secretary  of  War  for  the  discharge  of  the  militia  at  that 
place.  In  less  than  a  week  after  the  receipt  of  the  order, 
and  the  consequent  dismission  of  the  troops,  the  additional 
force  which  has  been  mentioned,  arrived,  and  joined  the 
British  squadron.  The  alarm  produced  by  this  event,  and 
the  exposure  of  the  city  of  New-London  to  an  attack,  in- 
duced General  Burbeckto  dispatch  an  express  to  Governor 
Smith,  and  request  a  detachment  of  militia  for  the  protec- 
tion of  that  city.  A  similar  application  was  made  on  be- 
half of  the  inhabitants  of  New-London;  and  orders  were 
immediately  issued  for  a  strong  body  of  the  militia  to  re- 
pair to  that  station.  On  the  20th  of  the  same  month 
Governor  Smith  convened  the  council,  to  confer  with  them 
on  the  state  of  affairs,  and  to  submit  to  them  the  measures 
he  had  adopted  in  the  emergency  which  had  so  recently 
occurred.  They  unanimously  approved  of  his  conductj; 
and  advised  him  to  detach  an  additional  body  of  men  for 
the  defence  of  New^-London. 

How  this  dismission  of  the  militia,  and  the  subsequent 
sudden  call  for  a  new  detachment,  all  occurring  within  the 
compass  of  a  single  week,  is  to  be  accounted  for,  has  not 
been  explained.  Whether  it  was  owing  to  a  fit  of  caprice, 
or  to  some  other  cause  which  it  was  thought  on  the  score 
of  prudence  required  concealment,  remains  among  the 
mysteries  of  the  period.     Until  an  explanation  is  made, 

37 


290  HISTORY    OF    THE 

the  public  must  be  left  to  form  their  own  conclusions.  Tc 
whatever  other  cause  it  may  be  ascribed,  no  person  will 
charge  it  to  the  account  of  an  eager  solicitude,  on  the  part 
of  the  national  government,  to  protect  the  inhabitants  on 
the  sea-coast  of  the  state,  against  the  inroads  of  the 
enemy. 

In  his  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  session  of  the  gene- 
ral assembly  of  that  state  in  October,  1813,  Governor 
Smith  alluded  to  the  occurrences  which  have  been  men- 
tioned, in  the  following  manner — 

"  The  cause  which  first  occasioned  the  array  of  a  mi- 
litary force  at  New-London  has  not  ceased  to  operate. 
Accordingly,  at  the  request  of  the  general  government,  a 
considerable  body  of  Iroops  has  been  kept  at  that  station. 
I  have  endeavoured,  conformably  to  the  advice  of  the 
council,  to  divide  the  duty  between  the  militia  and  the 
military  corps,  and  to  spread  detachments  of  the  former 
over  the  several  brigades.  To  men,  however,  who  are 
accustomed  to  different  pursuits,  the  service  could  not  be 
otherwise  than  burdensome.  The  remark  is  particularly 
applicable  to  the  regiments  in  the  neighbourhood  of  New- 
London.  From  their  proximity  to  the  scene  of  action,  they 
were  of  course  first  brought  into  the  field,  and  although 
they  were  dismissed  as  speedily  as  circumstances  would 
permit,  yet  the  frequent  alarms,  produced  by  sudden  aug- 
mentation of  the  enemy's  force,  as  frequently  compelled 
them  to  return.  They  have  therefore  suffered  losses  and 
privations  which  could  be  equalled  only  by  the  patience 
and  magnanimity  with  which  they  were  endured.  Their 
hardships  were  unhappily  increased  by  an  occurrence, 
which,  as  it  is  intimately  connected  with  these  events,  ought 
not  to  pass  unnoticed.  An  order  from  the  war  depart- 
ment for  the  dismission  of  all  the  militia  then  on  duty, 
arrived  at  the  moment  a  detuchment  from  the  distant  bri- 
gades was  on  the  march  to  relieve  those  who  had  been  so 
repeatedly  called  into  service.     Relieving  the  general  go- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  291 

%^eriiment  had  the  right  of  determining  what  degree  of 
force  would  suffice  to  protect  the  national  property,  and 
unwilling  to  obtrude  the  services  of  our  citizens  upon  the 
public  when  they  were  not  desired,  especially  in  a  season 
so  very  important  to  our  husbandmen,  I  issued  instruc- 
tions giving  full  effect  to  the  order.  Scarcely  however 
had  the  disbanded  troops  reached  their  several  homes,  be- 
fore a  request  for  the  militia  was  renewed,  enforced  by  an 
urgent  petition  from  the  principal  inhabitants  of  New- 
London  and  Groton.  This  combined  application  I  felt  no 
disposition  to  refuse.  The  requisite  aid  was  immediately 
ordered :  but  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  men  who  had 
been  just  discharged,  were  obliged  to  repair  again  to  the 
post  of  danger,  and  to  remain  until  a  new  detachment 
could  be  levied  and  brought  to  their  relief.  The  ground 
of  this  procedure  is  hitherto  unexplained." 

In  the  course  of  the  session,  a  joint  committee  of  the 
two  houses  was  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  thfe 
subject  of  the  war,  who  made  a  report,  from  which  thte 
following  passage  is  copied — 

"  The  committee  cannot  forbear  to  express  their  opinion 
on  a  subject  intimately  connected  with  the  object  of  their 
appointment.  They  consider  the  general  plan  of  warfare 
adopted  by  the  Administration  of  the  National  Govern- 
ment, as  not  conformable  to  the  spirit  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.  I'hat  instrument  was  formed,  an-d 
adopted,  among  other  things,  for  the  express  purpose 

OF  PROVIDING  FOR  THE  COMMON  DEFENCE  OF  THE  NA- 
TION. The  war  in  which  we  are  now  engaged,  was  de- 
clared hy  the  government  of  the  United  States.  The  con- 
test is  with  a  nation  possessed  of  an  immense  naval  forc«, 
and  capable  of  annoying  us  in  no  other  manner  than  by 
means  of  that  force.  To  its  attacks  a  long  extent  of  sea- 
coast,  stretching  from  one  extremity  of  the  nation  to  the 
other,  and  containing  a  vast  proportion  of  its  population 
and  wealth,  was  peculiarly  exposed.     Against  the  dangers 


292  HISTORY    OF   THE 

and  calamities  of  a  war  thus  declared,  and  with  such  an 
enemy,  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities,  towns,  villages,  and 
plantations  along  that  coast,  had  an  undoubted  and  impe- 
rative right  to  such  protection  as  the  nation  could  provide 
Instead  of  which,  the  regular  forces  liave  been,  almost 
without  exception,  ordered  away  from  the  Atlantic  fron- 
tier, to  the  interior  of  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  car- 
rying hostilities  into  the  territory  of  unoffending  provinces, 
and  in  pursuit  of  conquests,  which,  if  achieved,  would  pro- 
bably produce  no  solid  benefit  to  the  nation;  while  the  sea- 
coast  is  left  exposed  to  the  multiplied  horrors  usually  pro- 
duced by  an  invading  and  exasperated  enemy." 

The  events  and  transactions  of  1814,  immediately  con- 
nected with  the  military  operations  in  Connecticut,  have 
been  already  adverted  to.  The  burthens  thrown  upon  the 
New-England  states  at  the  commencement  of  the  war  in 
1812,  had  been  increasing  in  weight  and  severity  through 
the  two  following  years,  until,  by  the  refusal  of  the  na- 
tional government  to  furnish  supplies  and  pay  for  the 
troops  employed  in  the  defence  of  the  coast,  and  particu- 
larly in  Connecticut  to  protect  the  naval  squadron  near 
New-London,  had  become  nearly  intolerable.  In  the 
meantime  the  national  government,  embarrassed  by  the 
fruits  of  their  own  rashness,  in  declaring  war  when  they 
were  totally  unprepared  with  the  means  of  carrying  it  on 
with  the  least  prospect  of  success,  were  driven  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  raising  money  by  loans,  and  this  at  an  extrava- 
gant rate  of  premiums  to  the  lenders.  As  a  large  portion 
of  the  wealth  of  the  country  was  in  the  hands  of  men  who 
considered  the  war  not  only  unnecessary  but  unjust,  appli- 
cation was  of  course  made  to  this  description  of  persons  to 
advance  the  means  of  defraying  the  expenses  to  which  it 
necessarily  subjected  the  government.  Voluntary  loans  by 
individuals  who  viewed  the  controversy  in  the  light  which 
has  been  alluded  to,  were  to  a  great  extent  declined,  and 
much  clamour  was  raised,  throughout  a  large  part  of  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  293 

country,  against  them,  for  their  want  of  patriotism  in  this 
course  of  conduct.     It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  a  charge 
of  this  description  should  be  preferred,  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  against  individuals  who  were  situated 
as  the  capitalists  in  the  New-England  states  were.     The 
government  had,  in  their  opinion,  plunged  the  nation  into 
a  war  unnecessarily,  and  without  having  previously  made 
the  requisite  preparations  for  carrying  it  on  with  any  rea- 
sonable hope  of  success.     The  war  had  exposed  them  to 
the  most  serious'calamities  from  a  naval  enemy ;  and  to 
increase  the  evils  under  which  they  laboured,  the  govern- 
ment   had    withdrawn    their   troops   from    the    sea-coast, 
more  immediately  liable  to  hostile  visitation,  and  left  them 
to  defend  themselves,  or  to  suffer  all  the  horrors  of  inva- 
sion, while  the  national  forces  which  ought  to  have  defend- 
ed and  protected  them,  were  despatched  to  a  distant  re- 
gion, on  a  quixotic  expedition,  after  adventures  in  no  way 
likely  to  raise  the  reputation  of  the  government,  or  to  pro- 
mote the  substantial  interests  of  the  country.    And  to  add 
to  all  these,  during  the  year  1814,  when  the  dangers  were 
the  most  threatening,  and  the  fears  of  the  inhabitants  on 
the  coast  were  excited  to  the  highest  pitch,  the  govern- 
ment, in  a  fit  of  splenetic  resentment,  withheld  all  supplies 
of  provisions  and  pay  from  the  large  bodies  of  militia  thus 
forced    into   the  field  in  self-defence.      It   certainly   was 
presuming  much  when  that  government  called   upon  the 
wealthy  men  of  the  eastern  states  to  lend  them   money  to 
expend  in   attempts   to   subdue  the  British  provinces,  at 
the  same  moment  that  the  families  and   firesides  of  the 
latter  were  exposed  to  the  inroads  and  devastations  of  an 
exasperated  foe.     Nor  would  an  appeal  to  the  feelings  of 
patriotism  be  likely  to  add  much  force  to  a  call  of  this  de- 
scription. 

But  on  what  ground  is  it,  that  men  are  bound  by  feel- 
ings of  patriotism,  to  lend  their  money  to  the  government 
to  carry  on  a  war,  the  effects  of  which  are  in  the  most  ex- 


294  HISTORY    OF   THE 

tremedegree  disastrous  to  them,  and  the  principle  of  which 
they  conscientiously  and  utterly  condemn  ?  As  good  citi 
zens,  they  will  of  course  yield  obedience  to  the  laws;  and 
if  the  laws  exact  money  from  them  to  support  the  war, 
they  will  pay  it.  But  voluntary  loans  stand  upon  a  very 
different  basis.  As  honest  men,  they  cannot,  consistently 
with  their  integrity,  voluntarily  contribute  their  aid  in  pro- 
secuting an  unjust  and  unnecessary  war,  because  such  a 
course  of  conduct  would  involve  them  in  the  guilt,  as  well 
as  the  calamities  of  the  controversy.  "Besides,  is  a  man 
to  be  forced,  under  any  circumstances,  to  lend  money  to 
his  government  ?  The  idea  is  incompatible  with  the  plain- 
est principles  of  freedom.  In  the  dark  ages,  the  despotic 
sovereigns  of  Europe  did  not  hesitate,  by  the  most  cruel 
tortures,  to  force  one  class  of  their  subjects  to  advance 
them  money,  whenever  they  thought  proper  to  make  such 
a  requisition.  But  in  modern  times,  the  practice  of  forc- 
ing contributions,  from  members  of  civilized  communi- 
ties, is  left  exclusively  to  highway  robbers  and  associa- 
tions of  banditti.  Civilized  governments  dare  not  raise 
money  in  this  mode.  On  the  broad  principle  of  freedom, 
freemen  have  a  perfect  and  unquestionable  right  to  with- 
hold their  contributions  of  money  from  any  object,  let  the 
requisition  proceed  from  what  source  it  may.  It  has  been 
urged  in  reference  to  this  subject,  that  the  character  of  the 
country  was  at  stake,  and  every  man  was  bound,  let  his 
political  principles  or  feelings  have  been  what  they  might, 
to  bury  those  principles  and  feelings,  and  support  the  war, 
and  save  the  reputation  of  the  country.  The  opposers  of 
the  war  viewed  the  matter  in  a  somewhat  different  light. 
The  administration  of  the  national  government,  and  their 
immediate  partizans  and  supporters,  made  the  war.  It 
was  their  war,  and  not  that  of  the  country.  A  large  por- 
tion of  the  country  was  opposed  to  it,  and  used  every  effort 
to  prevent  its  occurrence.  Their  remonstrances  were  not 
listened  to,  and  the  war  was  declared.    The  responsibility 

r 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  295 

of  it,  therefore,  rested  upon  those  who  brought  it  upon  the 
nation.     It  was  not,  then,  the  character  of  the  country 
that  was  at  stake,  except  so  far  as  the  country  was  respon- 
sible for  the  acts  of  its  government — but  it  was  the  cha- 
racter of  the  administration.     It  is  probable  that  the  oppo- 
sers  of  the  war  did  not,  under  the  pecuUar  circumstances 
of  the  case,  consider  themselves  bound  to  make  any  extra- 
ordinary efforts  or  sacrifices  to  save  the  reputation  of  an 
administration  in  whom  they  never  placed  confidence,  and 
whose  misuse  of  the  powers  with  which  they  had  been  en- 
trusted, had  reduced  them  to  a  state  of  great  peril,  and 
subjected  them  to  the   most  lively  apprehensions.     The 
principle  contended  for  by  those  who  claimed  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  capitalists,  whether  they  approved  or  disapproved 
of  the  war,  upon  the  broad  ground  of  public  spirit  and  pa- 
triotism to  advance  their  money  to  carry  on  the  war,  may 
be  brought  to  a  test  respecting  which  there  is  very  little 
room  for  mistake.     Laws  were  passed  early  in  the  contro- 
versy, authorising  the  government  to  accept  the  services 
of  volunteer  troops.     Probably  such  services  were  offered 
in  a  variety  of  instances  ;  but  did  any  man  ever  pretend 
that  the  great  body  of  the  militia  throughout  the  Union, 
were  bound,  by  a  rp^^ard  to  the  character  of  the  country, 
voluntarily  to  shoulder  their  muskets  and  march  into  the 
field  ?     It  is  certain  that  men  are  of  more  importance  in  a 
war  than  even  money,  because  the  latter  is  wanted  almost 
exclusively  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  former.     But 
what  proportion  even  of  the  able-bodied  men  of  the  United 
States,  who  were  the  supporters  of  the  administration,  and 
of  course  of  the  war,  ever  tendered  their  personal  services 
in  the  field  to  the  government  ?     And  who  ever  thought  of 
reproaching   and   reviling   them,  because  they  preferred 
staying  at  home,  to  risking  their  lives  in  the  camp,  as  ene- 
mies to  their  country,  or  even  as  wanting  in  the  proper 
feelings  of  patriotism  ?     When  the  war  in  Europe  was 
brought  to  a  close  by  the  downfall  of  Bonaparte,  and  the 


296  HISTORY    OF    THE 

overthrow  of  his  imperial  power  and  tyranny,  then  the  au- 
thors of  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  became  seriously  alarmed  for  their  popularity,  as 
well  as  for  the  safety  of  the  country.  Under  the  excite- 
ment which  their  well  grounded  fears  for  their  own  safe- 
ty produced,  they  made  every  exertion  in  their  power  to 
enlist  the  nation  at  large  in  the  contest.  The  means 
adopted  for  this  purpose,  were  not  of  the  most  reputable 
kind.  Instances  of  gross  imposition  upon  the  people  at 
large  are  exhibited  in  the  course  of  this  work,  which  will 
justify  this  assertion  ;  while  the  original  policy  which  led  to 
the  war,  and  the  objects  for  which  it  was  professedly  de- 
clared, must  satisfy  every  reasonable  and  dispassionate 
mind,  that  its  character  was  not  national.  In  addition  to 
this,  the  fact  that  it  was  political,  and  intended  to  answ^er 
the  purposes  of  politicians  of  a  daring  and  ambitious  cha- 
racter, was  well  known  at  the  time  to  those  most  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  the  public  affairs  of  the  nation. 

In  the  course  of  the  year  1814,  the  progress  of  the  war 
upon  the  sea-coast  became  in  the  highest  degree  alarming 
and  destructive.  It  appeared  to  be  the  object  of  the  Bri- 
tish to  render  hostilities  as  distressing  to  the  inhabitants, 
especially  upon  the  southern  division  6f  the  Union,  as  the 
ravages  of  invading  armies  could  make  them.  It  is  not 
the  object  of  this  work  to  give  a  history  of  the  war.  The 
subject  is  alluded  to  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  mise- 
rably it  was  conducted  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
and  how  the  inhabitants  along  the  Atlantic  shore  were  left 
exposed  to  its  depredations  and  miseries,  while  the  na- 
tional government  were  either  totally  unable,  or  not  dis- 
posed to  yield  them  any  protection.  In  the  month  of 
August,  having  entire  command  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay, 
the  British  lancled  a  force  in  the  state  of  Maryland,  and 
moved  forward  towards  the  city  of  Washington,  the  seat 
of  the  United  States  government.  An  attempt  was  made 
by  the  miUtia  of  that  state  to  resist  them,  particularly  at 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  297 

Bladensburgh,  but  without  success  ;  and  their  progress 
towards  the  capital  was  so  rapid,  that  the  President,  and 
other  high  officers  of  the  government,  were  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  fleeing  into  the  country  with  great  precipitation, 
to  avoid  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  During  the 
time  in  which  they  held  possession  of  the  city  of  Washing- 
ton, they  destroyed  the  public  buildings,  and  committed 
other  depredations,  in  a  manner  and  to  an  extent,  that 
would  have  better  characterized  an  armed  body  of  Van- 
dals, than  the  well  disciplined  forces  of  a  modern  civilized 
government.  At  the  same  time,  a  squadron  of  armed 
ships  sailed  up  the  Potomac,  and  took  possession  of  the 
city  of  Alexandria,  where  they  contented  themselves  with 
carrying  away  all  public  and  private  naval  stores,  the 
shipping  then  in  port,  and  merchandise  of  every  descrip- 
tion. These  enterprises  were  followed  by  an  attack  upon 
the  city  of  Baltimore,  where  the  British  were  repulsed 
with  considerable  loss ;  and  among  the  officers  who  were 
killed  on  that  occasion,  was  General  Ross,  the  command- 
ing officer  of  the  expedition.  It  was  also  well  understood, 
that  the  plan  of  their  operations  included  attacks  upon  the 
other  principal  cities  and  towns  upon  the  sea-coast,  such 
as  Charleston,  Savannah,  &c.  and  the  character  of  the 
war  was  rapidly  degenerating  into  a  system  of  barbarous 
invasion  of  towns  and  villages,  the  plundering  of  private 
inhabitants,  and  the  burning  of  vessels,  stores,  &c.  and 
spreading  ruin  and  desolation  along  the  sea-shore. 

The  disasters  of  1814  showed,  in  the  most  conclusive 
manner,  the  incapacity,  or  indisposition  of  the  national 
government  to  protect  the  country  against  the  calamities 
brought  upon  it  by  the  war  into  which  they  had  plunged  it ; 
and  the  uncivilized  manner  in  which  it  was  carried  on  dur- 
ing that  year,  greatly  alarmed  the  fears  of  the  people,  who 
<:ould  not  but  see  that  the  inhabitants  more  immediately 
exposed  to  the  inroads*of  naval  squadrons,  were  in  danger 
of  experiencing  the  most  severe  misfortunes  and  sufferings 

38 


298  HISTORY    OF    THE 

And  what  added  much  to  the  general  anxiety,  was  the 
publication  of  a  message  from  the  President  to  congress, 
in  the  month  of  October  of  that  year,  containing  an  ac- 
count from  the  American  commissioners  for  negotiating 
peace  at  Ghent,  of  the  extravagant  demands  of  the  British 
commissioners,  of  certain  principles  as  the  basis  of  nego- 
tiation. By  a  despatch  from  the  former,  dated  August 
19th,  1814,  it  was  stated,  that  it  was  demanded  as  a  sine 
qua  non  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  that  the  Indians  who 
had  been  engaged  in  hostilities  on  the  side  of  that  nation, 
and  against  the  United  States,  "  should  be  included  in  the 
pacification  ;  and  as  incident  thereto,  the  boundaries  of 
their  territories  should  be  permanently  established."  The 
object  of  this  requisition  was  stated  to  be,  "  that  the 
Indians  should  remain  as  a  permanent  barrier  between 
our  western  settlements  and  the  adjacent  British  pro- 
vinces, to  prevent  them  from  being  conterminous  to  each 
other  :  and  that  neither  the  United  States  nor  Great  Bri- 
tain should  ever  thereafter  have  the  right  to  purchase  or 
acquire  any  part  of  the  territory,  thus  recognized  as  be- 
longing to  the  Indians." 

It  was  stated  further,  that  there  should  be  a  revision  of 
the  boundary  line  between  the  dominions  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States  ;  and  in  explanation  of  this  requisi- 
tion, it  was  said  that — *'  Experience  had  proved  that  Ihe 
joint  possession  of  the  lakes ^  and  a  right,  common  to  both  na- 
tions, to  keep  up  a  naval  force  on  them,  necessarily  produced 
collisions,  and  rendered  peace  insecure.  As  Great  Britain 
could  not  be  supposed  to  expect  to  make  conquests  in  that 
quarter,  and  as  that  province  was  essentially  weaker  than 
the  United  States,  and  exposed  to  invasion,  it  was  neces- 
sary for  its  security  that  Great  Britain  should  require  that 
the  United  States  shoidd  hereafter  keep  no  armed  naval  force 
on  the  western  lakes,  from  Lake  Ontario  to  Lake  Superior, 
both  inclusive  ;  that  they  should  not  €rect  any  fortified  or  mi- 
litary post  or  establishment  on  the  shores  of  those  lakes  ;  and 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  209 

^hat  they  should  not  maintain  those  which  are  already  exist- 
ing. This  must  be  considered,  they  said,  as  a  moderate 
demand,  since  Great  Britain,  if  she  had  not  disclaimed 
the  intention  of  any  increase  of  territory,  might,  with  pro- 
priety, have  asked  a  cession  of  the  adjacent  American 
shores.  The  commercial  navigation  and  intercourse  would 
be  left  on  the  same  footing  as  heretofore.  It  was  ex- 
pressly stated,  in  answer  to  a  question  (by  the  American 
commissioners)  that  Great  Britain  was  to  retain  the  right 
of  having  an  armed  naval  force  on  those  lakes,  and  of 
holding  military  posts  and  establishments  on  their  shores." 

This  last  demand,  respecting  the  exclusive  occupation 
of  the  lakes,  was  not  stated  as  a  sine  qua  non;  the  British 
commissioners,  when  inquired  of  respecting  that  point, 
declined  giving  a  positive  answer. 

The  message  and  documents  relating  to  this  subject,  so 
far  as  the  executive  thought  proper  to  make  them  public, 
were  published  without  delay  ;  and  as  was  doubtless  ex- 
pected and  intended,  they  excited  much  feeling  through- 
out the  Union.  Not  an  individual  in  the  United  States, 
.  /  however  decidedly  he  might  originally  have  been  opposed 
to  the  declaration  of  war,  and  however  strongly  he  might 
have  disapproved  the  general  policy  and  measures  of  the 
administration,  could  fail  of  rejecting  such  extravagant 
demands  as  the  basis  of  a  treaty  of  peace.  Overlooking 
what  had  passed,  there  was  a  general  determination  to 
resist  such  a  requisition  at  every  hazard.  Some  other 
facts  relating  to  this  subject,  of  which  the  community  at 
large  have,  even  to  this  day,  been  kept  in  ignorance,  may 
now  with  much  propriety  be  adverted  to.  A  letter  from 
Washington,  dated  October  15th,  1814,  from  a  gentleman 
of  the  highest  respectability,  and  directed  to  his  friend, 
contains  the  following  passage — 

*'  The  instructions  to  our  commissioners  were  communi- 
cated and  read  on  the  14th.  They  are  voluminous,  an4 
contain  a  great  deal  of  reasoning.      The  greatest  fart  are 


300  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ordered  to  he  printed.  The  subjects  of  blockade  and  impress- 
ment, after  the  fall  of  Bonaparte,  were  entirely  abandoned. 
With  respect  to  security  on  the  lakes,  our  commissioners  were 
instructed  to  make  the  same  demands  of  the  British,  as  they 
have  made  on  us — that  is,  that  the  British  shall  keep  no  force 
there,  while  we  might  keep  as  large  a  force  as  we  thought 
proper.     Some  of  the  party  say,  that  the  British  must  have 

had  a  knowledge  of  these  instructions,  and  that  ■, 

instead  of  finding  out  other  people's  secrets  at  London, 
has  probably  lost  his  own." 

It  is  doubted  whether  a  more  singular  occurrence  than 
this  ever  took  place  in  the  history  of  any  government.  The 
war  was  declared  against  Great  Britain,  at  a  time,  and 
under  circumstances  as  irritating  to  that  government,  as 
can  well  be  imagined.  It  was  also  against  the  decided 
opinions  and  feelings  of  a  large  portion  of  our  own  coun- 
trymen. But  events  had  occurred  which  had  changed  the 
face  of  things,  and  gave  that  nation  the  vantage  ground 
against  us ;  and  it  therefore  became  necessary  to  excite 
the  resentment  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
unite  them  in  opposition  to  the  extravagant  demands  of 
the  enemy  as  the  price  of  peace.  For  those  purposes  the 
instructions  containing  these  demands,  were  communicat- 
ed to  Congress,  and  the  country,  as  the  sine  qua  non,  the 
only  basis  on  which  Great  Britain  would  consent  to  nego- 
tiate for  a  treaty  of  peace  ;  and  as  has  been  remarked,  it 
produced  the  intended  effect — the  country  was  greatly  ex- 
cited, and  manifested  a  determination,  under  no  circum- 
stances, to  yield  to  such  requisitions.  Now  it  seems  that 
though  vte  declared  the  war,  and  were  in  a  state  of  alarm 
for  the  result,  yet  02ir  commissioners  were  instructed  to  make 
the  same  extravagant  demands  of  the  British,  that  they 
made  of  us  ;  but  the  instructions  to  our  commissioners 
were  never  presented  to  the  British  negotiators,  and  were 
kept  back  from  the  public,  while  those  of  the  British  were 
distributed  through  the  country,  to  rouse  the  public  indig- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  301 

nation.     Nor  have  the  instructions  relating  to  this  particu- 
lar subject  ever  been  published  to  this  time. 

The  facts  now  disclosed  warrant  the  belief,  that  the 
British  government  had,  by  some  means  or  other,  become 
acquainted  with  the  nature  of  the  instructions  to  our  com- 
missioners, and  therefore  shaped  theirs  to  meet  them. 
But  the  British  commissioners  having  disclosed  their  in- 
structions, ours  had  address  enough  to  keep  their  own  out 
of  sight,  doubtless  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  Presi- 
dent to  produce  a  strong  effect  upon  the  public  mind,  and 
to  induce  all  descriptions  of  people  to  unite  in  opposition 
to  such  extravagant  demands.  The  effect  was  produced; 
but  it  was  the  result  of  a  gross  imposition,  not  to  say 
fraud,  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

The  situation  in  which  the  state  of  Connecticut  was 
placed  early  in. the  year  1814,  may  be  in  some  measure 
ascertained  from  the  following  extract  from  the  speech 
delivered  by  Governor  Smith  to  the  legislature  of  that 
state,  at  the  opening  of  their  session  in  the  month  of  May. 

"  I  am  not  informed  that  any  effectual  arrangements 
are  made  by  the  national  government  to  put  our  sea-coast 
into  a  more  respectable  state  of  defence.  Should  the  plan 
of  the  last  campaign  be  revived,  and  especially  should  the 
war  retain  the  desolating  character  it  has  been  made  to 
assume,  the  states  on  the  Atlantic  border  cannot  be  insen- 
sible to  the  dangers  which  await  them.  '  To  provide  for 
the  common  defence'  was  an  avowed,  and  it  may  with 
truth  be  said  the  chief  purpose  for  which  the  present  con- 
stitution was  forraed>  How  far  this  object  is  promoted  by 
aiming  at  foreign  conquest,  and  resigning  our  most  wealthy 
and  populous  frontier  to  pillage  and  devastation,  becomes 
a  momentous  inquiry.  Whatever  measures,  gentlemen/ 
you  may  think  proper  to  adopt  on  the  occasion,  I  feel  as- 
sured they  will  flow  from  an  equal  regard  to  your  own 
rights  and  to  the  interests  of  the  Union.  In  any  event,  I 
am  persuaded  that  we  shall  place  no  reliance  on  the  for- 


302  HISTORY   OF   THE 

bearance  of  a  declared  enemy,  and  that  if  the  aid  to  which 
we  are  entitled  is  withheld,  the  means  which  God  has 
given  us  will  be  faithfully  employed  for  our  safety. 

"It  is  with  concern  I  lay  before  you  an  official  account 
of  the  destruction  of  a  very  considerable  number  of  pri- 
vate vessels  at  Saybrook,  by  a  detachment  from  the  British 
squadron.  The  misfortune  is  embittered  by  the  reflection 
that  it  would  probably  have  been  prevented  by  a  small 
force  stationed  at  Fort  Fenwick,  at  the  entrance  of  Con- 
necticut river.  It  will  be  recollected  that  a  guard,  autho- 
rised by  the  United  States,  was  kept  at  that  post  nearly  the 
whole  of  the  last  season.  It  was  dismissed  early  in  De- 
cember. Information  of  the  exposed  condition  of  these 
vessels,  and  of  the  consequent  apprehensions  of  the  town 
for  its  own  safety,  was  duly  transmitted  to  the  war  depart- 
ment, and  the  attention  of  the  government  to  the  impor- 
tant objects  was  earnestly  solicited.  It  was  presumed,  as 
there  were  regular  troops  in  the  vicinity,-  either  that  the 
request  would  be  promptly  complied  with,  or  if  such  an 
arrangement  was  inconvenient,  that  this  government  would 
be  frankly  and  seasonably  apprized  of  it.  In  the  latter 
event  the  force  of  the  state  would  have  been  applied  not 
less  readily  to  the  protection  of  the  persons  and  property 
of  our  citizens,  than  it  had  been  to  the  defence  of  the  na- 
tional squadron.  Under  these  circumstances  then  existing, 
the  Council,  whom  I  particularly  consulted,  could  not  think 
it  adviseable  for  the  state  government  to  interfere." 

The  war  having  been  declared  for  the  reasons  assigned, 
and  hostilities  having  ^commenced,  and  prosecuted,  it  has 
not  been  an  object  of  importance  to  trace  the  course  of 
the  administration  with  re<?ard  to  the  mode  of  conducting 
it,  but  to  ascertain  the  principles  on  which  they  would  be 
wWling  to  bring  it  to  a  close.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  immediately  after  the  declaration  of  war  was  pub- 
lished, and  lonor  before  the  news  of  that  event  could  have 
reached  England,  the  orders  in  council  were  repealed  by 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  303 

the  British  government,  leaving  no  other  acknowledged 
cause  of  war   except  the  subject  of  impressment.     The 
strong  language  used  by  the  President,  and  the  Secretary 
of  State,  on  various  occasions,  has  been  noticed.     After 
the  offer  of  mediation  by  the  emperor  of  Russia,  the  Pre- 
sident, professing  to  entertain  no  doubts  that  Great  Britain 
would  accede  to  the  proposition,  nominated  commissioners 
to  negotiate  under  that  mediation,  and  furnished  them  with 
a  long  set  of  instructions,  relative  to  the  formation  of  a 
treaty  of  peace.     Those  instructions  related  principally  to 
the  subject  of  impressment.     In  the  course  of  them  it  is 
said — "I  have  to  repeat,  that  the  great  object  which  you 
have  to  secure,  in  regard  to  impressment,  is,  that  our  flag 
shall  protect  the  crew.^^ — Again — "Upon  the  whole  subject 
I  have  to  observe,  that  your  first  duty  will  be  to  conclude 
a  peace  with  Great  Britain^  and  that  you  are  authorized  to 
do  it,  in  case  you  obtain  a  satisfactory  stipulation  against  im- 
pressment,  one  which  shall  secure,  under  our  flag,  protection  to 
the  crew.     The  manner  in  which  it  may  be  done  has  been 
already  stated,  with  the  reciprocal  stipulations  which  you 
may  enter  into,  to  secure  Great  Britain  against  the  injury 
of  which   she  complains.     If  this  encroachment  of  Great 
Britain  is  not  provided  against,  the   United  States  have  ap- 
pealed to  arms  in  vain.     If  your  efforts  to  accomplish  it 
should  fail,  all  further  negotiations  will  cease,  and  you  will 
return  home  without  delay. ' ' 

These  instructions  bear  date  April  15th,  1813. 

The  British  government  having  declined  the  offer  of 
Russian  mediation,  a  proposition  was  made  to  open  a  ne- 
gotiation at  Gottenburg.  This  having  been  agreed  to,  in- 
structions were  made  out  to  the  United  States  commission- 
ers accordingly.  In  those  instructions,  after  a  reference 
to  those  previously  given,  when  it  was  supposed  the  nego- 
tiations would  have  been  held  at  St.  Petersburgh,  and  a 
declaration  that  they  were  to  be  considered  as  applicable, 
except  where  modified  by  the  present,  to  the  negotiations 


304  HISTORY    OF    THE 

about  to  take  place;  the  following  passage  occurs — *'  On 
impressment,  as  to  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  be 
exempted  from  it,  I  have  nothing  new  to  add.  The  senti- 
ments of  the  President  have  undergone  no  change  on  that  im- 
portant subject.  This  degrading  practice  must  cease;  our 
flag  must  protect  the  crew,  or  the  United  States  cannot  con- 
sider themselves  an  independent  nation.^^ 

On  the  I4th  of  February,  1814,  additional  instructions 
were  forwarded  to  the  commissioners,  in  which  the  follow- 
ing passage  appears — "  By  an  article  in  the  former  in- 
structions, you  were  authorised  in  making  a  treaty  to  pre- 
vent impressment  from  our  vessels,  to  stipulate,  provided 
a  certain  specified  term  could  not  be  agreed  on,  that  it 
might  continue  in  force  for  the  present  war  in  Europe 
only.  At  that  time  it  seemed  probable  that  the  war  might 
last  many  years.  Recent  appearances,  however,  indicate 
the  contrary.  Should  peace  be  made  in  Europe,  as  the 
practical  evil  of  which  we  complain  in  regard  to  impress- 
ment would  cease,  it  is  presumed  the  British  government 
would  have  less  objection  to  a  stipulation  to  forbear  that 
practice  for  a  specified  term,  than  it  would  have,  should 
the  war  continue.  In  concluding  a  peace  with  Great  Bri- 
tain, even  in  case  of  a  previous  general  peace  in  Europe, 
it  is  important  to  the  United  States  to  obtain  such  astipu- 
lation." 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  the  letter  from  which  the  pre 
ceding  passage  is  copied,  was  written  after  the  failure  of 
Bonaparte's  Russian  expedition,  and  the  disastrous  retreat 
of  his  forces  from  Moscow.  On  the  24th  of  March,  1814, 
the  Secretary  of  State  wrote  a  short  letter  to  the  commis- 
sioners, in  which  he  says — "If  a  satisfactory  arrangement 
can  be  concluded  with  Great  Britain,  the  sooner  it  can  be 
accomplished  the  happier  for  both  countries.  If  such  an 
arrangement  cannot  be  obtained,  it  is  important  for  the 
United  States  to  be  acquainted  with  it  without  delay." 

When  the  war  was  declared  by  the  United  States,  in 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  805 

1812,  Bonaparte  was  just  preparing  to  invade  Russia  with 
an  immense  army,  and  with  every  expectation  of  hum- 
bling, at  least,  if  not  of  dethroning  the  sovereign  of  that 
vast  and  powerful  empire.  It  requires  the  exercise  of 
much  charity  towards  this  government  to  believe  that  they 
did  not  seize  that  opportunity  to  throw  their  weight  into 
the  scale  against  Great  Britain,  who  was  supporting  Rus- 
sia against  France,  and  whose  influence  and  power  had  up 
to  that  time  prevented  the  absolute  subjugation  of  the 
whole  continent  of  Europe  by  the  French.  Hence  it  may 
be  accounted  for,  that  after  the  defeat  which  the  ambi- 
tious emperor  of  that  nation  experienced  in  Russia,  the 
tone  of  the  United  States  government  so  suddenly  changed 
on  the  subject  of  the  negotiations  for  peace,  and  the  still 
greater  change  after  he  was  dethroned  in  1814.  This 
will  be  manifest  from  the  style  of  the  letter  just  quoted, 
and  still  more  so  from  one  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to 
the  commissioners,  dated  June  25th,  1814 —  .   <  * 

"  It  is  impossible,  with  the  lights  which  have  reached 
us,  to  ascertain  the  present  disposition  of  the  British  go- 
vernment towards  an  accommodation  with  the  United 
States.  We  think  it  probable  that  the  late  events  in 
France  may  have  had  a  tendency  to  increase  its  preten- 
sions. 

''At  war  with  Great  Britain,  and  injured  by  France, 
the  United  States  have  sustained  the  attitude  founded  on 
those  relations.  No  reliance  was  placed  on  the  good 
offices  of  France,  in  bringing  the  war  with  Great  Britain 
to  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  Looking  steadily  to  an  ho- 
nourable peace,  and  the  ultimate  attainment  of  justice 
from  both  powers,  the  President  has  endeavoured,  by  a 
consistent  and  honourable  policy,  to  take  advantage  of  every 
circumstance  that  might  promote  that  result.  He,  neverthe- 
less}, knew  that  France  held  a  place  in  the  political  system  of 
Europe  and  of  the  tcorld,  which,  as  a  check  on  England, 
could  not  fail  to  be  useful  to  us.    What  effect  the  late  events 

30 


306  HISTORY    OF   THE 

may  have  had,  in  these  respects,  is  the  important  circura" 
stance  of  which  you  are  doubtless  better  informed  than  we 
can  be. 

"  It  was  inferred  from  the  general  policy  of  Russia,  and 
the  friendly  sentiments  and  interposition  of  the  emperor, 
that  a  respect  for  both  would  have  much  influence,  with 
the  British  cabinet,  in  promoting  a  pacific  policy  towards 
us.  The  manner,  however,  in  which  it  is  understood  that 
a  general  pacification  is  taking  place  ;  the  influence  Great 
Britain  may  have  in  modifying  the  arrangements  involved 
in  it ;  the  resources  she  may  be  able  to  employ  exclusively 
against  the  United  States  ;  and  the  uncertainty  of  the 
precise  course  which  Russia  may  pursue  in  relation  to  the 
war  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  natu- 
rally claim  attention,  and  raisp  thp  important  question,  in 
reference  to  the  subject  of  impressment,  on  which  it  is  pre- 
sumed your  negotiations  will  essentially  turn,  whether 
your  powers  ought  not  to  be  enlarged,  so  as  to  enable  you 
to  give  to  those  circumstances  all  the  weight  to  which  they 
may  be  entitled.  On  full  consideration,  it  has  been  de- 
cided, that  in  case  no  stipulation  can  be  obtained  from  the 
British  government  at  this  moment,  when  its  pretensions 
may  have  been  much  heightened  by  recent  events,  and 
the  state  of  Europe  be  most  favourable  to  them,  either 
relinquishing  the  claim  to  impress  from  American  vessels, 
or  discontinuing  the  practice,  even  in  consideration  of  the 
proposed  exclusion  from  them  of  British  seamen,  you  may 
concur  in  an  article,  stipulating,  that  the  subject  of  impress- 
ment, together  with  that  of  commerce  between  the  two 
countries,  be  referred  to  separate  negotiation,  to  be  un- 
dertaken without  delay,  at  such  place  as  you  may  be  able 
to  agree  on,  preferring  this  city,  if  to  be  obtained." 

Two  days  after  the  date  of  the  preceding  letter,  viz- 
June  27th,  1814,  the  Secretary  of  State  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  American  commissioners,  in  which  is  the  following 
passage — 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  307 

"  On  mature  consideration  it  has  been  decided,  that 
under  all  the  circumstances  above  alluded  to,  incident  to  a 
prosecution  of  the  war,  you  may  omit  any  stipulation  on  the 
subject  of  impressment,  if  found  indispensably  necessary  to 
terminate  it.  You  will,  of  course,  not  recur  to  this  expe- 
dient until  all  your  efforts  to  adjust  the  controversy  in  a 
more  satisfactory  manner  have  failed.  As  it  is  not  the 
intention  of  the  United  States,  in  suffering  the  treaty  to  be 
silent  on  the  subject  of  impressment,  to  admit  the  British 
claim  thereon,  or  to  relinquish  that  of  the  United  States, 
it  is  highly  important  that  any  such  inference  be  entirely 
precluded,  by  a  declaration  or  protest  in  some  form  or 
other,  that  the  omission  is  not  to  have  any  such  effect  or 
tendency.  Any  modification  of  the  practice  to  prevent 
abuses,  being  an  acknowledgment  of  the  right  in  Great 
Britain,  is  utterly  inadmissible." 

On  the  11th  of  August,  1814,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
in  a  letter  to  the  commissioners,  says — "  By  my  letters  of 
the  25th  and  27th  of  Jun-e,  of  which  another  copy  is  now 
forwarded,  the  sentiments  of  the  President,  as  to  the  con- 
ditions on  which  it  will  be  proper  for  you  to  conclude  a 
treaty  of  peace,  are  made  known  to  you.  It  is  presumed 
that  either  in  the  mode  suggested  in  my  letter  of  the  25th 
of  June,  which  is  much  preferred,  or  by  permitting  the 
treaty  to  be  silent  on  the  subject,  as  is  authorized  in  the 
letter  of  the  27th  of  June,  the  question  of  impressment 
may  be  so  disposed  of,  as  to  form  no  obstacle  to  a  pacifi- 
cation. This  government  can  go  no  further,  because  it  will 
make  no  sacrifice  of  the  rights  or  honour  of  the  nation." 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  negotiations  between  the 
British  and  American  commissioners,  related  almost  exclu- 
sively to  subjects  which  had  no  connection  with  the  causes 
of  the  war.  The  declaration  of  war  was  founded  on  the 
orders  in  council,  and  impressment.  The  first  were  re- 
pealed within  a  week  from  the  date  of  the  declaration  of 
war,  leaving  nothing  to  contend  about  but  impressment. 


308  HISTORY    OF    THE 

In  one  of  the  earliest  communications  from  the  commis- 
sioners of  the  United  States  to  those  of  Great  Britain, 
when  the  negotiations  opened  at  Ghent,  and  which  was 
dated  the  24th  of  August,  1814,  is  contained  the  following 
passage — "  The  causes  of  the  war  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  having  disappeared  by  the  maritime  paci- 
fication of  Europe,  the  government  of  the  United  States  does 
not  desire  to  continue  it  in  defence  of  abstract  principles, 
which  have,  for  the  present,  ceased  to  have  any  practical  effect. 
The  undersigned  have  been  accordingly  instructed  to  agree 
to  its  termination,  both  parties  restoring  whatever  they 
may  have  taken,  and  both  reserving  all  their  rights,  in 
relation  to  their  respective  seamen." 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  commissioners  made  use 
of  this  language,  in  pursuance  of  the  powers  contained  in 
their  instructions.  But  who  will  undertake  to  reconcile  it 
with  that  adopted  by  the  committee  of  foreign  relations  in 
January,  1813?  Referring  to  the  repeal  of  the  orders  of 
council  in  June,  1812,  as  having  removed  one  of  the  causes 
of  the  war,  leaving  only  that  of  impressment,  the  commit- 
tee say^ — "Had  the  executive  consented  to  an  armistice  on 
the  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council,  without  a  satisfactory 
provision  against  impressment,  or  a  clear  and  distinct  un- 
derstanding with  the  British  government  to  that  effect, 
your  committee  would  not  have  hesitated  to  disapprove  it. 
The  impressment  of  our  seamen  being  deservedly  consid- 
ered a  principal  cause  of  the  war,  the  war  ought  to  be  pro- 
secuted until  that  cause  was  removed." — "  War  having 
been  declared,  and  the  case  of  impressment  being  neces- 
sarily included  as  one  of  the  most  important  causes,  it  is 
evident  that  it  must  be  provided  for  in  the  pacification  : 
the  omission  of  it  in  a  treaty  of  peace  would  not  leave  it 
on  its  former  ground:  it  would  in  effect  be  an  absolute 
relinquishment." — "It  is  an  evil  which  ought  not,  which 
cannot  be  longer  tolerated." — "It  is  incompatible  with 
their  (the  United  States)  sovereignty.     It  is  subversive  of 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  809 

the  main  pillars  of  their  independence.  The  forbearance 
of  the  United  States  under  it  has  been  mistaken  for  pusil- 
lanimity." 

Notwithstanding  these,  and  many  other  specimens  of 
strong  language,  and  a  professed  predetermination,  on  the 
part  of  our  government,  to  prosecute  the  war  until  a  spe- 
cific agreement,  in  a  formal  treaty,  should  be  obtained 
from  Great  Britain,  renouncing  both  the  right  and  the 
practice  of  impressment,  the  moment  Bonaparte  was  over- 
thrown, and  his  power  subverted,  the  subject  dwindled  into 
an  abstract  principle,  not  worth  the  trouble  of  further  con- 
troversy. 

In  September,  1814,  Congress  were  convened  by  the 
executive  at  an  earlier  day  than  had  been  fixed  at  the  pre- 
vious adjournment ;  and  on  the  20th  of  that  month  the 
President's  message  was  received  by  the  houses.  After 
alluding  to  the  reasons  for  the  early  meeting,  one  of  which 
was  the  manner  in  which  the  war  was  carried  on,  mani- 
festing a  spirit  of  hostility  more  violent  than  ever,  the  Pre- 
sident remarks— 

"  This  increased  violence  is  best  explained  by  the  two 
important  circumstances,  that  the  great  contest  in  Europe, 
for  an  equilibrium  guarantying  all  its  states  against  the 
ambition  of  any,  has  been  closed  without  any  check  on 
the  overbearing  power  of  Great  Britain  on  the  ocean  ;  and 
that  it  has  left  in  her  hands  disposable  armaments,  with 
which,  forgetting  the  difficulties  of  a  remote  war  against 
a  free  people,  and  yielding  to  the  intoxication  of  success, 
with  the  example  of  a  great  victim  to  it  before  her  eyes, 
she  cherishes  hopes  of  still  further  aggrandizing  a  power 
already  formidable  in  its  abuses  to  the  tranquillity  of  the 
civilized  and  commercial  world. 

"  But,  whatever  may  have  inspired  the  enemy  with 
these  more  violent  purposes,  the  public  councils  of  a  na- 
tion, more  able  to  maintain  than  it  was  to  acquire  its  in- 
dependence, and   with  a  devotion   to  it,  rendered   more 


310  HISTORY   OF   THE 

ardent  by  the  experience  of  its  blessings,  can  never  deli- 
berate but  on  the  means  most  effectual  for  defeatin^^  the 
extravagant  views  or  unwarrantable  passions  with  which 
alone  the  war  can  now  be  pursued  against  us." 

It  is  very  apparent  from  the  language  above  cited,  that 
President  Madison  had  become  seriously  alarmed  by  the 
course  of  events  in  Europe,  the  downfall  of  Bonaparte, 
and  the  destruction  of  his  imperial  despotism,  and  that  he 
therefore  considered  it  necessary  to  excite  the  country  to 
make  more  vigorous  exertions  in  carrying  on  the  war,  the 
folly  and  fruitlessness  of  which  now  stared  him  full  in  the 
face.  That  he  expected  the  war  would  render  powerful 
assistance  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  great  object  which 
the  French  emperor  had  in  view — viz.  the  humiliation,  if 
not  the  absolute  subjugation  of  Great  Britain,  cannot  be 
doubted.  And  that  the  disappointment  in  his  expecta- 
tions from  this  quarter  not  only  mortified,  but  alarmed 
him,  is  very  apparent.  "  The  closing  of  the  great  contest 
in  Europe,"  he  says,  "  without  producing  any  check  on 
the  overbearing  power  of  Great  Britain  on  the  ocean,  has 
left  in  her  hands  disposable  armaments,  with  which,  for- 
getting the  difliculties  of  a  remote  war  against  a  free  peo- 
ple, she  cherishes  hopes  of  still  further  aggrandizing  a 
power  already  formidable  to  the  tranquillity  of  the  civilized 
and  commercial  world."  That  our  government  expected 
to  have  an  important  agency  in  producing  that  check  to 
the  power  of  Great  Britain,  when  they  undertook  the  war, 
nobody  who  is  acquainted  with  the  history  and  circum- 
stances of  the  case  can  doubt.  But  it  is  a  little  extraordi- 
nary that  the  President  should  allude  to  the  war  as  if  it 
were  one  for  which  they  were  responsible,  apparently  de- 
sirous of  keeping  out  of  sight  the  fact,  that  it  was  forced 
upon  them  by  us,  and  that  under  circumstances  calculated 
greatly  to  excite  their  feelings,  and  enkindle  their  resent- 
ment against  this  country. 

But  the  language  of  the  next   paragraph  is  still   more 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  311 

extraordinary.  The  message,  with  apparent  gratification, 
states,  that  as  a  nation,  we  were,  in  1814,  more  able  to 
maintain  our  independence  than  loe  were  originally  to  ac- 
quire it ;  and  that  having  experienced  the  blessings  of  in- 
dependence, we  could  deliberate  on  nothing  *'  but  the  most 
effectual  means  of  defeating  the  extravagant  views  and 
unwarrantable  passions  with  which  alone  the  war  could 
be  pursued  against  us."  It  was  understood  that  the  war, 
when  declared,  was  to  vindicate  our  rights,  not  to  defend 
our  independence.  Whatever  encroachments  might  have 
been  committed  against  our  neutral  character,  and  those 
were  the  injuries  complained  of,  there  was  no  attempt 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  to  destroy  our  national  inde- 
pendence, and  reduce  us  to  the  condition  of  colonies.  If 
our  political  character  as  a  foreign  independent  people  was 
in  danger,  it  was  the  effect  of  the  indiscreet  declaration  of 
a  war  by  our  government,  at  a  time  when  they  were  en- 
entirely  unprepared  to  prosecute  it  with  vigour,  or  with 
any  reasonable  prospect  of  success.  And  if  at  the  end  of 
the  second  year  after  the  commencement  of  hostilities,  in- 
stead of  an  offensive,  it  had  become  a  defensive  war,  it 
was  in  the  most  emphatical  manner  disgraceful  to  those 
by  whom  it  was  forced  upon  the  country. 

After  reviewing  the  events  of  the  war,  the  message,  in 
terms  not  the  most  explicit,  but  sufficiently  clear,  when 
taken  in  connection  with  other  circumstances,  to  be  un- 
derstood, speaks  in  the  following  language  : — 

"  To  meet  the  extended  and  diversified  warfare  adopted 
by  the  enemy,  great  bodies  of  militia  have  been  taken  into 
service,  for  the  public  defence,  and  great  expenses  incur- 
red. That  the  defence  every  where  may  be  both  more  con- 
venient and  more  economical.  Congress  will  see  the  ne- 
cessity of  immediate  measures  for  filling  the  ranks  of  the 
regular  army^  and  of  enlarging  the  provision  for  special 
corps,  mounted  and  unmounted,  to  be  engaged  for  longer 
periods  of  service  than  are  due  from  the  militia.     I  ear- 


312  HISTORY    OF   THE 

nestly  renew,  at  the  same  time,  a  recommendation  of  suck 
changes  in  the  si/stem  of  the  militia,  as  by  classing  and  dis- 
ciplining for  the  most  prompt  and  active  service  the  portions 
the  most  capable  of  it,  will  give  to  that  great  resource  for 
the  public  safety,  all  the  requisite  energy  and  efficiency." 
This  subject  was  referred  by  the  house  of  representa- 
tives to  the  military  committee,  who  of  course  applied  to 
the  Secretary  of  War  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the 
views  and  wishes  of  the  administration  with  regard  to 
these  suggestions.  That  office  was  then  filled  by  James 
Monroe,  afterwards  President  of  the  United  States.  Hav- 
ing but  recently  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  office,  he 
was  not  able  to  reply  to  the  committee  until  the  17th  of 
October,  at  which  time  he  submitted  his  report,  of  which 
the  following  is  an  extract  : — 

"  1.  That  the  present  military  establishment,  amounting 
to  62,448  men,  be  preserved  and  made  complete,  and  that 
the  most  efficient  means  authorised  by  the  constitution  and 
consistent  with  the  general  rights  of  our  fellow  citizens  be 
adopted,  to  fill  the  ranks,  with  the  least  possible  delay. 

*'  2.  That  a  permanent  force,  consisting  of  at  least  40,000 
men,  in  addition  to  the  present  military  establishment,  be 
raised  for  the  defence  of  our  cities  and  frontiers,  under  an 
engagement  by  the  executive  with  such  corps  that  it  shall 
be  employed  in  that  service  within  certain  specified  limits, 
and  that  a  proportional  augmentation  of  general  officers 
of  each  grade,  and  other  staff,  be  provided  for." 

This  report  was  accompanied  by  a  long  letter  from  the 
Secretary,  addressed  to  the  chairman  of  the  military  com- 
mittee, explaining  the  views  and  sentiments  of  the  execu- 
tive department  on  the  subject  at  large,  under  the  general 
head  of  "Explanatory  Observations." 

"In  providing  a  force  necessary  to  bring  this  war  to  a 
happy  termination,  the  nature  of  the  crisis  in  which  we 
are  involved,  and  the  extent  of  its  dangers,  claim  particu- 


JIARTFORD    CONVENTION.  813 

lar  attention.  If  the  means  are  not  fully  adequate  to  the 
end,  discomfiture  must  inevitably  ensue. 

*'It  may  be  fairly  presumed,  that  it  is  the  object  of  the 
British  government,  by  striking  at  the  principal  sources  of 
our  prosperity,  to  diminish  the  importance,  if  not  to  de- 
stroy the  political  existence  of  the  United  States.  If  any 
doubt  remained  on  this  subject,  it  has  been  completely  re- 
moved by  the  despatches  from  our  ministers  at  Ghent, 
which  were  lately  laid  before  Congress. 

"A  nation  contending  for  its  existence  against  an  ene- 
my powerful  by  land  and  sea,  favoured  in  a  peculiar  man- 
ner by  extraordinary  events,  must  make  great  sacrifices. 
Forced  to  contend  again  for  our  liberties  and  independence , 
we  are  called  on  for  a  display  of  all  the  patriotism  which 
distinguished  our  fellow  citizens  in  the  first  great  struggle. 
It  may  be  fairly  concluded,  that  if  the  United  States  sacri- 
fice any  right,  or  make  any  dishonourable  concession  to  the 
demands  of  the  British  government,  the  spirit  of  the  nation 
will  be  broken,  and  the  foundations  of  iJieir  union  an  I  inde- 
pendence shaken.  The  United  States  must  relinquish  no  right, 
or  perish  in  the  struggle.  There  is  no  intermediate  ground 
to  rest  on.  A  concession  on  one  point,  leads  directly  to  the 
surrender  of  every  other.  The  result  of  the  contest  cannot 
be  doubtful.  The  highest  confidence  is  entertained  that 
the  stronger  the  pressure,  and  the  greater  the  danger,  the 
more  firm  and  vigorous  will  be  the  resistance,  and  the 
more  successful  and  glorious  the  result. 

*'It  is  the  avowed  purpose  of  the  enemy  to  lay  waste 
and  destroy  our  cities  and  villages,  and  to  desolate  our 
coast,  of  which  examples  have  already  been  afforded.  It 
is  evidently  his  intention  to  press  the  war  along  the  whole 
extent  of  our  sea-board,  in  the  hope  of  exhausting  equally  the 
spirit  of  the  people  and  the  national  resources.  There  is 
also  reason  to  presume,  that  it  is  the  intention  to  press  the 
war  from  Canada  on  the  adjoining  slates,  while  attempts 
are  made  on  the  city  of  New- York,  and  other  important 

40 


S14  HISTORY   OF   THEf 

points,  with  a  view  to  the  main  project  of  dismemberment 
or  subjugation.  It  may  be  inferred  likewise  to  be  a  part 
of  the  scheme,  to  continue  to  invade  this  part  of  the  Union,, 
while  a  separate  force  attacks  the  state  of  Louisiana,  in 
the  hope  of  taking  possession  of  the  city  of  New-Orleans^ 
and  of  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  that  great  inlet  and 
key  to  all  that  portion  of  the  United  States  lying  westward 
of  the  Alleghany  mountains.  The  peace  in  Europe  having 
given  to  the  enemy  a  large  disposable  force,  has  essentially 
favoured  these  objects. 

"The  advantage  which  a  great  naval  superiority  gives 
to  the  enemy,  by  enabling  him  to  move  troops  from  one 
quarter  to  another,  from  Maine  to  Mississippi,  a  coast  of 
two  thousand  miles  extent,  is  very  considerable.     Even  a 
small  force  moved  in  this  manner  for  the  purposes  avowed 
by  the  British  commanders,  cannot  fail  to  be  sensibly  felt, 
more  especially  by  those  who  are  most  exposed  to  it.     It 
is  obvious,  if  the  militia  are  to  be  relied  on  principally  for 
the  defence  of  our  cities  and  coasts  against  their  predatory 
and  desolating  incursions,  wherever  they  may  be  made, 
that  by  interfering  with  their  ordinary  pursuits  of  industry, 
it  must  be  attended  with  serious  interruption  and  loss  ta 
them,  and  injury  to  the  public,  while  it  greatly  increases 
the  expense.     It  is  an  object,  therefore,  of  the  highest  im- 
portance, to  provide  a  regular  force,  with  the  means  of 
transporting  it  from  one  quarter  to  another  along  our  coast, 
thereby  following  the  movements  of  the  enemy  with  the 
greatest  possible  rapidity,  and  repelling  the  attack  wher- 
ever it  may  be  made.     These  remarks  are  equally  true  as 
to  the  militia  service  generally  under  the  present  organi- 
zation of  the  militia,  and  the  short  terms  of  service  pre- 
scribed by  law.     It  may  be  stated  with  confidence,  that  at 
least  three  times  the  force  in  the  militia  has  been  employed 
at  our  principal  cities  along  the  coast,  and  on  the  frontier, 
in  marching  to  and  returning  thence,  that  would  have  been 
necessary  in  regular  troops ;  and  that  the  expense  attend- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  315 

ing  it  has  been  more  than  proportionably  augmented,  from 
the  difficulty,  if  not  the  impossibility,  of  preserving  the 
same  degree  of  system  in  the  militia,  as  in  the  regular 
service. 

"But  it  will  not  be  sufficient  to  repel  these  predatory 
and  desolating  incursions.  To  bring  the  war  to  an  honour- 
able termination,  we  must  not  be  contented  with  defending 
ourselves.  Different  feelings  must  be  touched,  and  appre- 
hensions excited  in  the  British  government.  By  pushing 
the  war  into  Canada,  we  secure  the  friendship  of  the  In- 
dian tribes,  and  command  their  services,  otherwise  to  be 
turned  by  the  enemy  against  us;  we  relieve  the  coast  frorxi 
the  desolation  which  is  intended  for  it,  and  we  keep  in  our 
hands  a  safe  pledge  for  an  honourable  peace. 

"  It  f«>llows  from  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  it  will  be 
necessary  to  bring  into  the  field  the  next  campaign,  not 
less  than  100,000  regular  troops.  Such  a  force,  aided,  in 
extraordinary  emergencies,  by  volunteers  and  militia,  will 
place  us  above  all  inquietude  as  to  the  final  result  of  this 
contest.  It  will  fix  on  a  solid  and  imperishable  founda- 
tion our  union  and  independence,  on  which  the  liberties 
and  happiness  of  our  fellow  citizens  so  essentially  depend* 
It  will  secure  to  the  United  Stales  an  early  and  advanta- 
geous peace. 

*'  The  return  of  the  regular  force  now  in  service,  laid 
before  you,  will  show  how  many  men  will  be.  necessary  to 
fill  the  present  corps  ;  and  the  return  of  the  numerical 
force  of  the  present  military  establishment,  will  show  how 
many  are  required  to  complete  it  to  the  number  proposed. 
The  next  and  most  important  inquiry  is,  how  shall  these 
men  be  raised  f  Under  existing  circumstances,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  most  prompt  and  efficient  mode  that  can  ko 
devised,  consistent  with  the  equal  rights  of  every  citizen, 
ought  to  be  adopted.  The  following  plans  are  respectfully 
submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  committee.     Being 


316  HISTORY   OF   THE 

distinct  in  their  nature,  I  will  present  each  separately,  with 
the  considerations  applicable  to  it." 

By  the  extreme  consternation  which  it  is  manifest  from 
the  language  of  this  document  the  administration  felt,  at 
facing  the  dangers  and  calamities  they  had  brought  upon 
the  country,  it  would  seem  that  they  must  have  engaged 
in  the  war  without  the  remotest  idea  that  they  could  fail 
of  success  in  its  progress  and  termination.  This  confi- 
dence of  theirs  undoubtedly  rested  upon  the  full  assurance 
they  entertained,  that  Bonaparte  would  succeed  in  his  ex- 
pedition against  Russia,  and  after  having  subdued  his  great 
northern  foe,  that  he  would  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  turn 
his  whole  force  against  Great  Britain,  in  which  event,  the 
downfall  of  the  latter  might  be  considered  as  absolutely 
certain.  The  circumstances  of  the  case  were,  by  an  un- 
toward series  of  occurrences,  reversed,  and  instead  of  the 
emperor  of  Russia  having  been  humbled  and  subdued,  that 
calamity  fell  upon  the  emperor  of  France  ;  and  thus  Great 
Britain  became  extricated  from  the  European  controversy, 
and  was  at  liberty  to  bring  all  her  force  to  bear  upon  the 
United  States.  It  was  not  unnatural  that  men,  whose 
Tiews  were  at  the  outset  so  shortsighted,  and  who  took  so 
much  for  granted,  should,  at  such  a  material  change  of 
circumstances,  when  their  eyes  were  opened  upon  the  dan- 
gers and  difficulties  with  which  they  were  surrounded,  be- 
come seriously  alarmed  and  perplexed  with  such  unex- 
pected embarrassments.  From  the  lofty  ground  of  a  na- 
tion which  had  declared  an  offensive  war,  at  the  end  of  a 
little  more  than  two  years,  we  were  reduced  to  one  "  con- 
tending for  existence,  against  an  enemy  powerful  by  land 
and  sea,"  and  "  favoured  in  a  peculiar  manner  by  extraor- 
dinary events."  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  British  na- 
tion were,  in  October,  1 814,  no  more  powerful  by  land  or  sea, 
than  they  were  in  June,  1812.  And  if  those  who  precipitated 
the  United  States  into  the  war,  had  possessed  a  little  more 
moderation  of  feeling,  had  entertained  a  smaller  degree 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  317 

of  devotion  to  France,  and  not  quite  so  much  animosity 
against  Great  Britain,  they  would  not  have  rushed  head- 
long, influenced  by  a  mad  calculation  of  future  events,  into 
a  contest  which  might  so  easily  and  so  speedily  bring  them 
to  the  extreme  of  danger,  and  this  when  so  absolutely  un- 
provided with  the  means  of  carrying  on  the  war,  and 
bringing  themselves  honourably  out  of  the  conflict. 

But  a  most  extraordinary  sentiment  is  contained  in  this 
document — extraordinary,  when  the  facts  connected  with 
it  are  taken  into  consideration.     The    President  of  the 
United  States,  speaking  through  the  medium  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  says  in  this  letter — "  It  may  be  fairly  con- 
cluded, that  if  the  United  States  sacrifice  any  right,  or 
make  any  dishonourable  concession  to  the  demands  of  the 
British  government,  the  spirit  of  the  nation  will  he  broken, 
and  the  foundation  of  their  union  and  independence  shaken. 
The  United  States  must  relinquish  no  right,  or  perish  in  the 
struggle.     There  is  7io  intermediate  ground  to  rest  on.     It 
will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  war  was  declared  in  order 
to  force  the  British  government  to  revoke  their  orders  of 
council,  and  to  give  up  the  practice  of  impressment.    The 
orders  of  council  were  revoked  within  five  days  after  the 
declaration  of  war,  leaving  no  avowed  subject  of  contro- 
versy but  that  of  impressment.     A   determination  not  to 
submit  to  this  any  longer,  was  manifested  throughout  the 
conflict ;  and  our  public  agents  of  all  descriptions,  who 
had  any  thing  to  do  with  the  subject  of  the  controversy, 
were  instructed  never  to  agree  to   any  treaty  of  peace 
which  did  not  contain  a  specific  provision,  that  the  British 
government  should  relinquish  that  practice.     And  in  a 
great   number   of  instances,  many  of  which  have  been 
quoted,  instructions  to  this  efl^ect  were  given  to  their  com- 
missioners, appointed  to  negotiate  for  peace,  and  language 
equally  strong  with  that  just  cited  from  the  letter  of  the 
Secretary  of  War,  was  used  in  their  instructions  on  the 
subject.     Now  let  it  be  remembered,  that  on  the  27th  of 


318  HISTORY    OF    THE 

June,  1814,  nearly  four  months  before  the  date  of  this  report 
of  the  Secretary  of  War,  instructions  had  been  sent  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  commissioners  at  Ghent, 
through  the  medium  of  James  Monroe,  then  Secretary  of 
State,  and  in  October  following  Secretary  of  IVar,  in  which 
those  commissioners  are  told  that — "  On  mature  conside- 
ration it  has  been  decided,  that  under  all  the  circumstances 
above  alluded  to,  incident  to  a  prosecution  of  the  war,  you 
may  omit  any  stipulation  on  the  subject  of  impressment,  ij 
found  indispensably  necessary  to  terminate  it."  That  is,  the 
only  subject  of  controversy,  about  which  the  country  had 
been  engaged  in  a  w^ar  for  nearly  two  years  and  a  half,  at 
an  expense  of  more  than  a  hundred  millions  of  dollars, 
and  from  thirty  to  fifty  thousand  lives,  was  formally  aban- 
doned in  June  ; — and  in  October  following,  it  was  declared 
that  rather  than  relinquish  any  right,  we  ought  to  make  up 
our  minds  to  perish  in  the  struggle.  This  can  be  viewed  in 
no  other  light  than  that  of  an  attempt,  on  the  part  of  the 
administration,  to  impose  upon  Congress  the  belief,  that 
we  were  fighting  for  existence,  and  that  we  ought  to  perish 
rather  than  surrender  a  single  right,  when  at  the  same 
moment,  the  only  ground  of  controversy  had  been  long  pre- 
viously abandoned  by  that  same  administration,  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  extricating  themselves  from  the  war. 

The  following  is  Mr.  Secretary  Monro's  "  First  Plan." 

**  Let  the  free  male  population  of  the  United  States, 
between  eighteen  and  forty-five  years,  be  formed  into 
classes  of  one  hundred  men  each,  and  let  each  class  fur- 
nish men  for  the  war,  within  thirty  d^ys  after  the 
classification,  and  replace  them  in  the  event  of  casualty. 

"  The  classification  to  be  formed  with  a  view  to  the 
equal  distribution  of  property  among  the  several  classes. 

♦'  If  any  class  fails  to  provide  the  men  required  of  it, 
within  the  time  specified,  they  shall  be  raised  by  draft  on 
the  whole  class ;  any  person  being  thus  drafted  being  al- 
lowed to  furnish  a  substitute. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  Sl9 

"  The  present  bounty  in  land  being  allowed  to  each  re- 
cruit, and  the  present  bounty  in  money,  which  is  paid  to 
each  recruit  by  the  United  States,  to  be  paid  to  each  draft 
by  all  the  inhabitants  within  the  precinct  of  the  class 
within  which  the  draft  may  be  made,  equally  according  to 
the  value  of  the  property  which  they  may  respectively 
possess  ;  and  if  such  bounty  be  not  paid  within  days, 
the  same  to  be  levied  on  all  the  taxable  property  of  the 
whole  precinct. 

"  The  recruits  to  be  delivered  over  to  the  recruiting 
officer  in  each  district,  to  be  marched  to  such  places  of 
general  rendezvous  as  may  be  designated  by  the  depart- 
ment of  war. 

"  That  this  plan  will  be  efficient  cannot  be  doubted.  It  is 
evident,  that  the  men  contemplated  may  soon  be  raised  by 
it.  Three  modes  occur,  by  which  it  may  be  carried  into 
effect.  1st.  By  placing  the  execution  of  it  in  the  hands 
of  the  county  courts  throughout  the  United  States.  2d. 
By  relying  on  the  militia  officers  in  each  county.  3d.  By 
a[)pointing  particular  persons  in  each  county  for  that  pur- 
pose. It  is  believed  that  either  of  these  modes  would  be 
found  adequate. 

*'  Nor  does  there  appear  to  be  any  well-founded  objec- 
tion to  the  right  in  Congress  to  adopt  this  plan,  or  to  its 
equality  in  its  application  to  our  fellow-citizens  individu- 
ally. Congress  have  a  right,  by  the  constitution,  to  raise 
regular  armies,  and  no  restraint  is  imposed  in  the  exercise 
of  it,  except  in  the  provisions  which  are  intended  to  guard 
generally  against  the  abuse  of  power,  with  none  of  which 
does  this  plan  interfere.  It  is  proposed,  that  it  shall 
operate  on  all  alike,  that  none  shall  be  exempt  from  it  ex- 
cept the  chief  magistrate  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
governors  of  the  several  states. 

**  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  Congress  could  not 
carry  this  power  into  effect,  otherwise  than  by  accepting 
the  voluntary  service  of  individuals.  It  might  happen  that 


320  HISTORY    OF   THE 

an  army  could  not  be  raised  in  that  mode,  whence  the 
power  would  have  been  granted  in  vain.  The  safety  of 
the  state  might  depend  on  such  an  army.  Long  continued 
invasions  conducted  by  regular  well  disciplined  troops,  can 
best  be  repelled  by  troops  kept  consttiutly  in  the  field,  and 
equally  well  disciplined.  Courage  in  an  army  is  in  a  great 
measure  mechanical.  A  small  body  well  trained,  accus- 
tomed to  action,  gallantly  led  on,  often  breaks  three  or 
four  times  the  number  of  more  respectable  and  more 
brave,  but  raw  and  undisciplined  troops.  The  sense  of 
danger  is  diminished  by  frequent  exposure  to  it  without 
harm,  and  confidence,  even  in  the  timid,  is  inspired  by  a 
knowledge  that  reliance  may  be  placed  on  others,  which 
can  grow  up  only  by  service  together.  The  grant  to 
Congress  to  raise  armies  was  made  with  a  knowledge  of 
all  these  circumstances,  and  with  the  intention  that  it 
should  take  effect.  The  framers  of  the  constitution,  and 
the  states  who  ratified  it,  knew  the  advantage  which  an 
enemy  might  have  over  us,  by  regular  forces,  and  intended 
to  place  their  country  on  an  equal  footing. 

*'  The  idea  that  the  United  States  cannot  raise  a  regu- 
lar army  in  any  other  mode  than  by  accepting  the  volun- 
tary service  of  individuals,  is  believed  to  be  repugnant  to 
the  uniform  construction  of  all  grants  of  power,  and  equal- 
ly so  to  the  first  principles  and  leading  objects  of  the  fede- 
ral compact.  An  unqualified  grant  of  power  gives  the 
means  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect.  This  is  an  uni- 
versal maxim  which  admits  of  no  exception.  Equally 
true  is  it  that  the  conservation  of  the  state  is  a  duty  para- 
mount to  all  others.  The  commonwealth  has  a  right  to 
the  service  of  all  its  citizens,  or  rather,  the  citizens  com- 
posing the  commonwealth  have  a  right  collectively  and  in- 
dividually to  the  service  of  each  other,  to  repel  any  danger 
which  may  be  menaced.  The  manner  in  which  the  ser- 
vice is  to  be  apportioned  among  the  citizens,  and  render- 
ed by  them,  are  objects  of  legislation.     All  that  is  to  be 


HAKTFORD    CONVENTION.  3W 

dreaded  in  such  case,  is  the  abuse  of  power,  and  happily 
our  constitution  has  provided  ample  security  against  that 
evil. 

"  In  support  of  this  right  in  Congress,  the  militia  ser- 
vice affords  a  conclusive  proof  and  striking  example.  The 
organization  of  the  militia  is  an  act  of  public  authority,  not 
a  voluntary  association.  The  service  required 'must  be 
performed  by  all,  under  penalties  which  delinquents  pay. 
The  generous  and  patriotic  perform  them  cheerfully.  In 
the  alacrity  with  which  the  call  of  the  government  has 
been  obeyed,  and  the  cheerfulness  with  which  the  ser- 
vice has  been  performed  throughout  the. United  States  by 
the  great  body  of  the  militia,  there  is  abundant  cause  to 
rejoice  in  the  strength  of  our  republican  institutions,  and 
in  the  virtue  of  the  people. 

"The  plan  proposed  is  not  more  compulsive  than  the 
militia  service,  while  it  is  free  from  most  of  the  objections 
to  it.  The  militia  service  calls  from  home,  for  long  terms, 
whole  districts  of  country.  None  can  elude  the  call.  Few 
can  avoid  the  service,  and  those  who  do  are  compelled  to 
pay  great  sums  for  substitutes.  This  plan  fixes  on  no  one 
personally,  and  opens  to  all  who  choose  it  a  chance  of  de- 
clining the  service.  It  is  a  principal  object  of  this  plan  to 
engage  in  the  defence  of  the  state  the  unmarried  and 
youthful,  who  can  best  defend  it,  and  best  be  spared,  and 
to  secure  to  those  who  render  this  important  service,  an 
adequate  compensation  from  the  voluntary  contribution  of 
the  more  wealthy  in  every  class.  Great  confidence  is  en- 
tertained that  such  contribution  will  be  made  in  time  to 
avoid  a  draft.  Indeed  it  is  believed  to  be  the  necessary 
and  inevitable  tendency  of  this  plan  to  produce  that  effect. 

"  The  limited  power  which  the  United  States  have  in 
organizing  the  militia  may  be  urged  as  an  argument  against 
their  right  to  raise  regular  troops  in  the  mode  proposed. 
If  any  argument  could  be  drawn  from  that  circumstance, 
I  should  suppose  that  it  would  be  in  favour  of  an  opposite 

41 


322  HISTORY    OF   THE 

conclusion.  The  power  of  the  United  States  over  the 
militia  has  been  limited,  and  that  for  raising  regular  ar- 
mies  granted  without  limitation.  There  was  doubtless 
some  object  in  this  arrangement.  The  fair  inference  seems 
to  be,  that  it  was  made  on  great  consideration;  that  the 
limitation  in  the  first  instance  was  intentional,  the  conse- 
quence of  the  unqualified  grant  of  the  second. 

"But  it  is  said  that  by  drawing  the  men  from  the  militia 
service  into  the  regular  army,  and  putting  them  under  re- 
gular officers,  you  violate  a  principle  of  the  constitution, 
which  provides  that  the  militia  shall  be  commanded  by 
their  own  officers.  If  this  was  the  fact,  the  conclusion 
would  follow.  But  it  is  not  the  fact.  The  men  are  not 
drawn  from  the  militia,  but  from  the  population  of  the 
country:  when  they  enlist  voluntarily,  k  is  not  as  militia 
men  that  they  act,  but  as  citizens.  If  they  are  drafted,  it 
must  be  in  the  same  sense.  In  both  instances  they  are 
enrolled  in  the  militia  corps,  but  that,  as  is  presumed,  can- 
not prevent  the  voluntary  act  in  one  instance,  or  the  com- 
pulsive in  the  other.  The  whole  population  of  the  United 
States  within  certain  ages  belong  to  these  corps.  If  the 
United  States  could  not  form  regular  armies  from  them, 
they  could  raise  none. 

"  In  proposing  a  draft  as  one  of  the  modes  of  raising 
men  in  case  of  actual  necessity,  in  the  present  great  emer- 
gency of  the  country,  I  have  thought  it  my  duty  to  exam- 
ine such  objections  to  it  as  occurfed,  particularly  those  of 
a  constitutional  nature.  It  is  from  my  sacred  regard  for 
the  principles  of  our  constitution  that  I  have  ventured  to 
trouble  the  committee  with  any  remarks  on  this  part  of 
the  subject. 

*'  Should  it  appear  that  this  mode  of  raising  recruits 
was  justly  objectionable  on  account  of  the  tax  on  property, 
from  difficulties  which  may  be  apprehended  in  the  execu- 
tion, or  from  other  causes,  it  may  be  advisable  to  decline 
the  tax,  and  for  the  government  to  pay  the  whole  bounty." 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  323 

Large  extracts  have  been  made  from  this  extraordinary 
document,  for  the  purpose  of  placing  before  the  commu- 
nity a  state  paper,  which  is  probably  but  little  known,  and 
which  contains  sentiments  and  doctrines  of  the  most  ex- 
travagant and  dangerous  description. 

The  proposition  here  made  is,  to  divide  the  free  male 
population  of  the  United  States  into  classes  of  100  men 
each,  each  class  to  furnish  n^^n.     This  classifica- 

tion to  be  made  with  a  view  to  an  equal  distribution  of 
property  among  the  classes.  If  any  class  should  fail  to 
provide  the  men  within  30  days  after  the  classification, 
they  were  to  be  raised  by  draft  on  the  class.  The  bounty 
given  to  recruits  by  the  United  States  in  money,  was  to  be 
paid  by  the  inhabitants  belonging  to  the  class  within  which 
the  draft  was  made,  according  to  the  value  of  the  property 
they  might  possess ;  and  if  not  paid  within  the  time  spe- 
cified by  law,  it  was  to  be  levied  on  all  the  taxable  pro- 
perty of  the  said  inhabitants.  The  recruits  thus  obtained, 
were  to  be  delivered  over  to  the  recruiting  officer  in  each 
district,  and  marched  to  such  places  of  general  rendezvous 
as  the  Secretary  of  War  miglit  direct. 

This  whole  system  is  founded  upon  the  simple  basis  of 
arbitrary  power  in  the  national  government  over  the  mili- 
tia of  the  states.  Vohmtary  enlistments  are  entirely  dis- 
carded, and  a  hundred  men,  arbitrarily  classed  together, 
and  their  property  as  arbitrarily  assessed,  are  to  be  forced 
to  raise  a  specified  number  of  soldiers  from  the  list  of 
names  in  their  class,  and  pay  them  their  bounty-money, 
and,  in  case  of  failure,  to  pay  a  round  sum  of  money,  in  fact 
as  a  penalty,  to  be  levied  and  collected  from  their  property, 
and  applied,  of  course,  to  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Uni- 
ted States.  This  was  a  conscription  of  the  most  detesta- 
ble kind,  intended  to  be  introduced  into  a  nation  living  un- 
der a  written  constitution  of  government,  and  nominally 
enjoying  the  benefit  of  laws  to  protect  their  persons  and 
property  against  the  arbitrary  exactions  of  despotic  power. 


324  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Although  rather  more  insidious  in  the  manner,  it  was  in- 
tended to  be  equally  efficacious  in  its  effects  with  the  con- 
scription established  in  France  by  Bonaparte, — the  object 
of  it  being  two-fold — first,  to  recruit  the  regular  army  by 
force  from  the  militia,  and  secondly,  to  replenish  the  trea- 
sury of  the  United  States,  not  by  a  forced  loan,  but  by  an 
exaction  from  a  certain  portion  of  the  community,  equally 
unwarranted  by  the  constitution  of  the  country  as  is  the 
demand  of  a  man's  purse  upon  the  highway  by  a  footpad. 
In  the  first  place,  the  attempt  to  force  the  militia  into 
the  regular  service  of  the  United  States,  to  perform  duty 
as  soldiers  of  the  standing  army,  was  in  direct  violation 
of  the  national  constitution.     It  has  already  been  contend- 
ed, and  it  is  believed  has  been  shown  in  this  work,  that  the 
militia  belong  to  the  several  states,  and  not  to  the  United 
States — that  the  latter  have  only  a  limited  power  over  the 
militia,  in  certain  cases  specified  in  the  constitution,  and 
that  beyond  those  cases,  the  United  States  have  no  authori- 
ty whatever   over  them.     A  statesman   of  distinguished 
talents,  a  few  weeks  after  the  date  of  this  letter  of  the 
Secretary  of  War,  made  the   following   remarks  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United   States — "  One 
general  principle  is,  that  the  militia  of  the  several  states 
belong  to  the  people  and  government  of  the  states — and 
not  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.     I  consider 
this  as  a  proposition  too  clear  to  require  illustration,  or  to 
admit  of  doubt.     The  militia  consist  of  the  whole  people 
of  a  state,  or  rather  of  the  whole  male  population  capable 
of  bearing  arms;  including  all  of  every  description,  avo- 
cation, or  age.     Exemption  from  militia  duty  is  a  mere 
matter  of  grace.     This   militia,  being  the  very  people, 
belong  to  the  people  or  to  the  state  governments,  for  their 
use  and  protection.     They  were  theirs  at  the  time  of  the 
revolution,  under  the  old   confederation — and  when  the 
present  form^  of  government  was  adopted.     Neither  the 
people  nor  their  state  governments  have  ever  surrendered 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  325 

this  their  property  in  the  militia  to  the  general  government, 
but  have  carefully  kept  and  preserved  their  general  do- 
minion or  control,  for  their  own  use,  protection,  and  de- 
fence.    They  have,  i-t  is  true,  granted  or  lent  (if  I  may  use 
such  an  expression)  to  Congress  a  special  concurrent  au- 
thority or  power  over  the  militia  in  certain  cases;  which 
cases  are*  particularly  set  down — guarded — limited  and 
restricted,  as  fully  as  the  most  scrupulous  caution,  and  the 
use  of  the  most  apt  and  significant  words  our  language 
affords  could  limit  and  restrict  them.     The  people  have 
granted  to  Congress  a  right  to  call  forth  the  militia  in  cer- 
tain cases  of  necessity  and  emergency — a  right  to  arm  and 
organize  them — and  to  prescribe  a  plan,  upon  which  they 
shall  be  disciplined  and  trained.     When  they  are  called 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States  (and  they  cannot  be 
called  unless  upon  the  happening  of  one  of  the  contingen- 
cies enumerated)  they  are  to  be  under  the  command  of 
the  President.     Hence  it  follows,  that  the  general  power, 
authority,  or  jurisdiction,  remains   in  the   state  govern- 
ments.   A  special,  qualified,  limited,  and  concurrent  power 
is  vested  in  Congress,  to  be  exercised  when  the  event  hap- 
pens, and  in  the  manner  pointed  out,  prescribed,  and  lim- 
ited in  the  constitution.     And  hence  it  also  follows,  that 
this  delegated  power  cannot  be  executed  upon  any  other 
occasions,  nor  in  any  other  ways,  than  those  prescribed  by 
the  constitution."* 

This  reasoning  may  challenge  refutation.  If  its  force  is 
admitted,  or  if  it  cannot  be  overthrown,  it  must  necessarily 
follow  that  there  is  no  authority  in  the  constitution,  under 
this  or  any  other  mask,  to  draft  the  militia  away  from  the 
states,  and  force  them  into  the  standing  army  of  the 
United  States,  to  do  duty  as  regular  soldiers  of  that  army. 
But,  says  the  Secretary  of  War — "  Congress  have  a 
right,  by  the  constitution,  to  raise  regular  armies,  and  no 

*  Speech  of  the  Hon.  Richard  Stockton,  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, United  States,  Decemher  10,  1814. 


326  HISTORY    OF   THE 

restraint  is  imposed  in  the  exercise  of  it,  except  in  the  pro- 
visions which  are  intended  generally  to  guard  against  the 
abuse  of  power,  with  none  of  which  does  this  plan  inter- 
fere." This  is  a  broad  and  sweeping  declaration.  What 
is  the  usual  mode  of  raising  or  recruiting  armies  f  By 
voluntary  enlistments  ;  and  there  can  be  no  other  mode 
adopted  in  this  free  country,  compatible  with  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  citizens.  Would  the  Secretary  of  War 
have  contended  for  the  authority  in  the  general  govern- 
ment, under  the  power  to  raise  armies,  to  issue  an  order 
to  the  several  states  to  send  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States  four  able-bodied  soldiers  from  every  hundred  men 
between  the  ages  of  18  and  45,  to  be  placed  in  the  ranks 
of  the  standing  army,  and  under  the  command  of  the  offi- 
cers of  that  army,  to  pay  each  man  a  hundred  dollars 
bounty,  or  in  failure  to  do  so,  to  pay  to  the  national  go- 
vernment a  hundred  dollars  for  each  man  ?  But  both  are 
equally  constitutional ;  and  if  the  power  for  which  he  con- 
tends is  warranted  by  the  constitution,  the  case  above 
stated  is  warranted  also. 

Another  constitutional  difficulty  lay  in  the  way  of  the 
Secretary  of  War,  and  it  was  so  important,  as  well  as  so 
obvious,  that  he  could  not  avoid  bestowing  a  moment's 
attention  to  it.  "  But  it  is  said,  that  by  drawing  the  men 
from  the  militia  service  into  the  regular  army,  and  putting 
them  under  regular  officers,  you  violate  a  principle  of  the 
constitution,  which  provides  that  the  militia  shall  be  com- 
manded by  their  own  officers.  If  this  was  the  fact ,  the 
conclusion  would  follow.  But  it  is  not  the  fact.  The  men 
are  not  drawn  from  the  militia,  but  from  the popidation  of 
the  country:  when  they  enlist  voluntarily,  it  is  not  as  mili- 
tiamen that  they  act,  but  as  citizens.  If  they  are  drafted, 
it  must  be  in  the  same  sense.  In  both  instances  they  are 
enrolled  in  the  militia  corps,  but  that,  as  is  presumed,  can- 
not prevent  the  voluntary  act  in  one  instance,  or  the  com- 
pulsive in  the  other.    The  whole  population  of  the  United 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  327 

States,  within  certain  ages,  belong  to  these  corps.  If  the 
United  States  could  not  form  regular  armies  from  them, 
they  could  raise  none." 

To  establish  the  constitutionality  of  his  plan,  then,  it 
was  incumbent  on  the  Secretary  of  War  to  establish  the 
position,  that  there  is  a  real  and  substantial  difference  be- 
tween the  citizens  as  a  body,  and  the  militia.  He  says  the 
men  who  by  his  plan  were  to  be  drafted  for  the  regular 
army,  *'  were  not  to  be  drawn  from  the  militia^  but  from 
the  population  of  the  country,'^  And  his  argument  rests 
entirely  upon  the  soundness  of  this  proposition.  Who 
then  are  the  militia  ?  The  militia,  in  the  most  extensive 
sense  of  the  word,  consist  of  the  whole  male  population  of 
a  state  capable  of  bearing  arms.  According  to  the  laws 
of  congress,  they  are  made  up  of  all  the  able-bodied  men 
of  the  country,  between  the  ages  of  18  and  45.  This  re- 
striction of  the  meaning  of  the  term  is  founded  upon  the 
idea  that  those  who  are  under  the  age  of  18  are  too  young 
to  endure  the  fatigues  and  perform  the  services  of  a  mi- 
litary life,  and  those  above  45  are  too  old.  If  the  first  are 
too  young,  and  the  last  are  too  old,  as  militiamen,  cer- 
tainly they  are  equally  so  as  citizens.  And  the  Secretary 
of  War  adopts  the  same  language  with  that  of  the  law,  in 
describing  that  part  of  the  population  from  which  his  con- 
scripts, or  drafts,  are  to  be  taken.  He  says,  let  the  free 
male  population  of  the  United  States,  hetween  18  and  45 
years,  he  formed  into  classes.  Now,  when  the  whole  male 
population  between  those  ages  are  formed  into  classes  as 
citizens,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  drafts,  it  may  be 
asked  where  are  the  militia  ?  Suppose  the  plan  had  pro- 
vided, that  instead  of  four  or  six  recruits  from  each  class, 
the  whole  number  of  the  class  had  been  included.  Where 
would  the  militia  of  the  states  have  been  in  that  case  ?  But 
if  the  constitution  gave  authority  to  congress  to  draft  four 
from  every  hundred  of  the  citizens,  in  a  greater  emer- 


328  HISTORY   OF   THE 

gency,  by  the  same   mode  of  reasoning,   it  could  have 
authorised  a  draft  of  fifty,  or  even  the  whole  hundred. 

The  most  abstruse  logic,  the  nicest  metaphysical  rea- 
soning that  the  human  mind  is  capable  of  devising,  can 
never  raise  this  argument  above  the  level  of  gross  and  ob- 
vious absurdity.  It  therefore,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
leaves  the  administration  liable  to  the  charge  of  a  second 
attempt  to  force  the  militia  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  in  violation  of  the  constitution,  by  taking  them 
away  from  the  states  to  which  they  belong,  depriving  them 
of  their  constitutional  right  to  be  commanded  by  their  own 
officers,  ordering  them  to  be  marched  where  the  Secretary 
of  War  might  direct,  and  reducing  them  to  the  degraded 
condition  of  regular  soldiers  in  a  standing  army.  The 
Secretary  of  War  acknowledges  that  such  will  be  the  con- 
clusion, if  the  men  thus  drafted  are  taken  from  the  mili- 
tia. That  they  must  be  taken  from  the  militia,  if  taken 
at  all,  has,  it  is  believed,  been  demonstrated.  It  then  must 
follow  that  the  plan  violated  the  constitution. 

"But,"  says  the  Secretary  of  War,  "it  would  be  ab- 
surd to  suppose  that  Congress  could  not  carry  this  power 
into  effect,  otherwise  than  by  accepting  tjie  voluntary  ser- 
vice of  individuals.  It  might  happen  that  an  army  could 
not  be  raised  in  that  mode,  whence  the  power  would  have 
been  granted  in  vain.  The  safety  of  the  state  might  de- 
pend on  such  an  army."  The  language  of  the  constitution- 
is — "  Congress  have  power  to  raise  and  support  armies." 
The  argument  of  the  Secretary  is,  that  having  the  power 
to  raise  armies,  if  it  cannot  be  done  by  voluntary  enlist- 
ment, it  may,  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  be  done  by  force ; 
and  hence  the  attempt  to  establish  this  system.  There  is 
no  allegation  in  this  letter,  that  the  militia  had  refused  to 
enlist.  Indeed,  such  an  allegation  could  not  have  been 
truly  made  on  the  occasion,  for  this  was  a  mere  project 
before  a  committee,  not  having  been  reported,  and  of 
course  no  call  could  have  been  made  under  it  upon  the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTIOIW  329 

militia  to  enlist.  As  far,  therefore,  as  the  soundness  of 
the  argument  depends  on  necessity,  it  must  fail,  because 
no  experiment  to  obtain  voluntary  enlistments  had  been 
made.  It  is,  however,  perfectly  obvious,  that  there  was  a 
further  object  in  view,  in  driving  this  measure  with  so 
much  force.  Money  was  wanted  as  well  as  men  ;  and  in 
one  mode  or  the  other  the  government  intended  to  obtain 
it.  They  meant  to  force  the  inhabitants  to  advance  them 
money  in  the  shape  of  a  bounty  to  the  conscripts,  or  in  the 
character  of  a  penalty  if  they  failed  in  procuring  the  men. 
If  the  bill  for  raising  the  eighty  thousand  men,  which  was 
brought  before  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Giles,  had  in  the  first 
place  provided  for  opening  recruiting  quarters,  the  men 
might  have  voluntarily  enlisted,  and  then  there  would 
have  been  no  opportunity  to  extort  the  money  from  the 
inhabitants. 

The  very  next  clause  of  the  constitution  after  that  for 
raising  and  supporting  armies,  is  in  the  following  words — 
*'  Congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  and  maintain  a 
navy."  Providing  a  navy,  is  ex'actly  equivalent  to  raising 
an  army ;  and  maintaining  a  navy  to  supporting  an  army. 
*'  Congress  have  a  right,"  says  the  Secretary  of  War,  "  by 
the  constitution,  to  raise  regular  armies,  and  no  restraint 
is  imposed  by  the  exercise  of  it."  Hence  he  infers  the 
right,  if  men  dp  not  voluntarily  enlist,  to  force  them  by  a 
draft,  in  other  words,  by  a  conscription,  into  the  ranks  of 
the  regular  army.  Congress  have  the  power  also  to  pro- 
vide a  navy,  and  there  is  no  restraint  imposed  upon  its  ex- 
ercise. By  the  same  course  of  reasoning,  they  might 
order  each  state  to  provide,  that  is  to  build  and  equip,  a 
seventy-four  gun  ship,  and  hand  it  over  to  the  United 
States,  as  a  constituent  part  of  their  naval  force.  And  as 
in  the  case  of  the  conscript,  the  bounty  was  to  be  paid  by 
the  classes,  so  in  the  case  of  the  ships,  it  might  be  ordered 
that  the  states  should  lay  in  the  stores,  or  furnish  the 
means  to  pay  the  men.     This  would  fall  distinctly  within 

4^ 


330  HISTORY   OF  THE 

the  idea  of  maintaining  a  navy ;  and  therefore,  agreeably 
to  the  mode  of  reasoning  adopted  by  the  Secretary  of 
War,  would  be  constitutional. 

The  Secretary  of  War  carries  hi^  doctrine  to  a  still 
greater  length.  He  says — "  An  unqualified  grant  of 
power  gives  the  means  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect. 
This  is  an  universal  maxim  which  admits  of  no  exception. 
Equally  true  is  it  that  the  conservation  of  the  state  is  a 
duty  paramount  to  all  others."  These  are  latitudinarian 
sentiments,  especially  when  it  is  considered  that  they  come 
from  a  source  which  has  always  contended  obstinately  for 
the  doctrine  of  "strict  construction,"  and  for  the  principle 
that  all  power  not  expressly  granted  to  the  United  States^ 
is  reserved  to  the  several  states.  However,  they  serve 
to  show,  that  men  who  in  some  situations  are  the  most 
pertinacious  in  their  adherence  to  certain  general  princi- 
ples, will,  when  placed  in  different  situations,  bend  easily 
to  circumstances,  and  adopt  those  of  a  more  liberal  de- 
scription. In  this  case,  however^  the  construction  is  very 
liberal,  under  the  maxim  that  "  the  conservation  of  the 
state  is  a  duty  paramount  to  all  others ;"  and,  therefore,, 
men  may  be  forced  not  only  without  constitutional  autho- 
rity, but  in  the  very  face  of  it,  from  the  militia  of  the 
states,  into  the  regular  army,  under  the  pretence  that  the 
commonwealth  is  in  danger.  An  inquiry  naturally  arises 
here,  what  composes  the  state  ?  The  answer  of  course  is^ 
the  people  of  the  state.  The  state  is  made  up  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  the  government  belongs  to  the  people.  This  is 
so  universally  acknowledged,  that  it  has  become  a  mere 
truism.  And  it  is  founded  upon  the  fundamental  princi- 
ple of  our  system,  that  the  people  are  the  source  of  power* 
No  man  dare  dispute  the  soundness  of  this  maxim.  On 
the  contrary,  the  very  rulers  of  our  country,  those  in  whose 
hands  the  powers  of  government,  from  time  to  time  are 
placed,  call  themselves  the  servants  of  the  people.  How- 
ever solemn  or  momentous,  then,  the  duty  of  conserving 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  331 

the  state  may  be,  it  is  very  questionable  whether  the  ser- 
vants of  the  people  have  the  right  to  insist  upon  it  that 
their  masters  shall,  under  all  circumstances,  be  forced  to 
perform  the  duty  of  conserving  themselves  and  their  govern- 
ment— that  the  question  whether  they  will  or  will  not, 
should  not  even  be  put  to  them,  but  they  are  ordered  by 
the  power  of  conscription  to  march  to  the  field,  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  care  of  their  own  interests,  at  the  com- 
mand of  their  servants. 

The  mode  proposed  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  for  car- 
rying this  project  into  effect,  is  indicative  not  only  of  a 
great  want  of  judgment  and  discretion  in  its  abettors,  but 
of  a  total  disregard  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  citi- 
zens. "  Three  modes  occur,"  says  that  oflicer,  *'  by  which 
it  may  be  carried  into  effect.  1.  J3y  placing  the  execu- 
tion of  it  in  the  hands  of  the  county  courts  throughout  the 
United  States.  2.  By  relying  on  the  militia  officers  in 
each  county.  3.  By  appointing  particular  persons  in 
€ach  county  for  that  purpose."  Suppose  each  of  these 
bodies  should  decline  to  execute  their  commission,  what 
would  in  that  case  become  of  the  conscription  f  If  the 
county  courts,  or  the  militia  officers,  had  undertaken  the 
task  in  some  states,  or  at  least  in  one,  viz.  in  Connecticut, 
the  legislature  of  the  state  would,  without  ceremony,  have 
revoked  their  commissions,  and  thus  deprived  them  of  all 
authority. 

But  suppose  either  conscript  body  had  accepted  the 
commission,  and  had  gone  on  to  class  the  militia,  and 
made  the  drafts,  in  what  mode  would  they  have  levied 
and  collected  the  bounty  in  the  one  case,  or  the  penalty  in 
the  other  ?  The  plan  says,  the  bounty  shall  be  "  paid  to 
each  draft  by  all  the  inhabitants  within  the  precinct  of  the 
class,  equally,  according  to  the  value  of  the  property  they 
may  respectively  possess  ;"  and  if  "  not  paid  within 
days,  the  same  to  be  levied  on  all  the  taxable  property  of 
the  said  inhabitants."     The  property  of  one  hundred  men 


332  HISTORY   OF   THE 

is  to  be  assessed.  One  might  be  worth  half  a  million  of 
dollars,  and  one  not  more  than  ten  dollars,  and  the  other 
ninety-eight  would  be  set  at  various  sums  between  the  two 
extremes.  In  what  manner  is  this  to  be  levied  and  col- 
lected ?  Who  is  to  decide  the  legal  questions  that  may 
arise,  render  the  judgment,  and  issue  the  execution?  Is 
the  property  to  be  taken  according  to  the  different  de- 
grees of  indebtedness  in  the  class,  and  sold  at  auction,  or 
by  private  sale  ?  The  constitution  says — "  In  suits  at 
common  law,  where  the  value  in  controversy  shall  exceed 
twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  pre- 
served." This,  however,  may  not  be  considered  as  a 
civil  claim,  but  as  partaking  more  of  a  criminal  nature. 
The  right  of  trial  by  jury  is  also  secured  to  all  persons  in 
criminal  cases. 

The  truth  is,  the  whole  scheme  was  not  only  unconsti- 
tutional, and  oppressive  in  the  most  extravagant  degree, 
and  totally  at  variance  with  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the 
citizens,  but  it  was  in  an  equal  degree  preposterous  and 
absurd.  And  when  it  was  modified,  and  reduced  some- 
what to  form,  in  a  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Giles  into  the 
senate,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  eighty  thousand  men  for 
the  army,  after  long  debate,  and  great  efforts  by  the  friends 
of  the  administration,  and  the  zealous  supporters  of  the 
war,  the  measure  could  not  be  carried  through  the  houses, 
and  of  course  failed. 

But  it  served  to  show  to  the  nation  at  large,  that  those 
who  plunged  the  country  into  the  war,  when  they  found 
their  popularity  in  danger,  were  prepared  to  adopt  the 
boldest  and  the  most  unconstitutional  measures  to  save 
their  own  reputations,  and  to  preserve  their  power.  And 
it  was  equally  well  calculated  to  excite  the  greatest  alarm 
in  the  citizens  at  large,  not  merely  for  the  preservation  of 
the  constitutional  authority  of  the  government,  but  for 
their  own  personal  security,  rights,  and  liberties  ;  and  to 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  333 

teach  them  the  absolute  necessity  of  watching  over  their 
own  freedom  and  safety. 

In  pursuance  of  what  appears  to  have  been  the  general 
plan  of  operations,  viz.  forcing  men  into  the  service,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  also  made  a  report,  in  answer  to  a 
resolution  of  the  senate,  "  for  the  better  organization  of 
the  navy  of  the  United  States."  Among  many  other  things 
contained  in  that  document,  is  the  following  passage — 

"  There  is  another  branch  of  the  service  which  appears 
to  me  to  merit  the  serious  deliberation  of  the  legislature, 
with  regard  to  the  establishment  of  some  regular  system, 
by  which  the  voluntary  enlistments  for  the  navy  may  de- 
rive occasional  enforcement  from   the  services  of  those 
seamen  who,  pursuing  their  own  private  occupations,  are 
exempt,  by  their  itinerant  habits,  from  public  service  of 
any  kind.     In  my  view,  there  would  be  nothing  incompa- 
tible with  the  free  spirit  of  our  free  institutions,  or  the 
rights  of  individuals,  if  registers,  with  a  particular  descrip- 
tive record,  were  kept  in  the  several  districts,  of  all  the 
seamen    belonging  to  the  United    States,   and  provision 
made  by  law  for  classing  and  calling  into  the  public  ser- 
vice, in   succession,  for   reasonable  stated  periods,   such 
portions  or  classes  as  the  public  service  might  require  ; 
and  if  any  individual  so  called  should  be  absent  at  the 
time,  the  next  in  succession  should  perform  the  tour  of 
duty  of  the  absentee,  who  should,  on  his  return,  be  liable 
to  serve  his  original  tour,  and  his  substitute  be  exempt 
from  his  succeeding  regular  tour  of  duty. 

"  In  the  military  service,  should  the  ranks  not  be  filled  by 
recruits,  the  deficiency  of  regular  force  may  be  filled  up 
by  drafts  of  militia  to  assemble  at  a  given  time  and  place  ; 
not  so  in  the  naval  service,  it  depends  exclusively  upon 
voluntary  enlistments,  upon  which  there  is  no  reliance  for 
any  given  object,  at  any  time  or  place.  Hence  the  most 
important  expeditions  may  utterly  fail,  though  every  pos- 


334  ,  HISTORY    OF    THE 

sible  exertion  shall  have  been  made  to  carry  them  into 
effect." 

This  was  advancing  another  step  in  the  policy  of  con- 
scription. Having,  as  was  probably  supposed,  devised  a 
plan  for  forcibly  turning  the  militia  into  regular  soldiers, 
and  recruiting  the  standing  army  by  a  large  body  of  con- 
scripts, the  next  attempt  was  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of 
the  navy  by  a  similar  process.  That  was,  in  effect,  to 
establish  by  law^  what  even  in  Great  Britain  has  never 
had  any  higher  sanction  than  that  of  practice,  viz. — a  sys- 
tem of  impressment — that  very  abuse,  for  which,  when  pro- 
ceeding from  another  nation  towards  us,  we  had  carried 
on  a  most  expensive  and  disastrous  war  of  nearly  two 
years  and  a  half  continuance.  And  it  is  worthy  of  notice, 
that  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  speaks  of  the  right  of 
drafting  the  militia,  proposed  by  the  Secretary  of  War, 
as  an  established  legal  right,  and  makes  use  of  it  as  an 
argument  to  justify  his  plan  of  impressment. 

At  the  same  time  that  these  attempts  were  making  by 
the  administration  to  establish  conscription  and  impress- 
ment by  law,  a  measure  was  brought  before  the  Senate  of 
a  kindred  character,  and  of  a  common  origin.  It  was 
called  a  bill,  "  making  further  provision  for  filling  the 
ranks  of  the  army  of  the  United  States."  The  first  sec- 
tion of  the  bill  provided,  that  recruiting  officers  should  be 
authorised  to  enlist  into  the  army  of  the  United  States 
any  free,  effective,  able-bodied  men,  between  the  age  of 
eighteen  and  fifty  years. 

The  second  section  repealed  so  much  of  former  acts,  as 
required  the  consent  in  writing  of  the  parent,  master,  or 
guardian,  to  authorise  the  enlistment  of  persons  under 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  provided  masters  of  apprentices 
who  enlist  should  receive  a  certain  portion  of  the  bounty- 
money. 

This  measure  excited  great  alarm  in  many  parts  of  the 
country.     It  was  considered  as  aiming  a  direct  blow  at  the 


HARTFORD    COxNVENTION.  335 

legislative  prerogatives  of  the  several  states,  by  the  as- 
sumption of  a  power  never  granted  to  the  United  States, 
but  most  clearly  belonging  to  the  several  states.  By  the 
laws  of  the  individual  states,  parents  have  an  absolute 
right  to  the  services  of  their  children,  until  they  arrive  at 
the  age  of  twenty-one  years.  This  right  is  founded  on 
the  duty  of  protection  and  support  on  the  one  side,  and  of 
obedience  and  service  on  the  other.  In  the  case  of  ap- 
prentices, the  relationship  is  formed  by  positive  contract 
between  the  parties;  and  the  constitution^ontains  no  au- 
thority for  Congress  to  interfere  in  the  private  concerns  of 
individuals  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  several  states,  to 
destroy  the  nearest  and  most  interesting  and  important 
relationships  of  domestic  life,  or  to  vacate  contracts  entered 
into  between  individuals,  concerning  the  ordinary  business 
of  life.  But  the  fears  of  parents  were  excited  to  the  high- 
est degree,  by  this  bold  and  arbitrary  attempt  to  destroy 
the  moral  character  and  welfare  of  their  children — to  take 
them  from  undef  parental  care  and  controul,  and  place 
them  in  the  purlieus  of  a  camp,  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
contaminating  atmosphere  of  a  regular  army. 

It  was  clearly  perceived,  that  if  Congress  could  thus 
interfere  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the  states,  annul  the' 
authority  of  their  laws  in  cases  of  such  importance  as  the 
domestic  relations  of  the  inhabitants,  and  set  aside  obliga- 
tions, legal,  moral,  and  social,  of  the  most  interesting  and 
momentous  character,  there  could  be  no  further  question 
about  the  nature  of  the  government.  It  must  be  considered 
as  a  fearful  and  unrelenting  despotism,  restrained  by  no 
constitutional  authority,  and  regulated  and  controuled  sole- 
ly by  its  absolute  and  sovereign  will  and  pleasure. 

The  legislature  of  Connecticut  were  in  session  when  in- 
formation was  received  of  the  propositions  before  Congress 
for  establishing  a  conscription  and  for  enlisting  minors. 
That  information  produced  a  great  degree  of  excitement, - 
and  the  constitutional  means  of  guarding  the  rights  of  the 


336  HISTORY    OF    THE 

militia,  and  of  parents,  guardians,  and  masters,  became 
an  object  of  serious  consideration  and  examination.  In 
the  course  of  the  session  the  following  measure  was  adopt- 
ed unanimously  in  the  council,  and  in  the  House  of  Re- 
presentatives by  a  vote  nearly  unanimous,  there  being  but 
six  in  the  minority. 

"Resolution. 

"  Whereas  a  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Department 
of  War,  for  filling  up  the  regular  army  of  the  United 
States,  has  been  submitted  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  now  in  session,  and  a  bill  for  an  act  to  carry  a  part 
of  the  same  into  execution  is  pending  before  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  United  States,  the  principles  of 
which  plan  and  bill,  if  adopted,  will  place  at  the  disposal 
of  the  administration  of  the  United  States  government, 
not  only  all  the  militia  of  this  state,  but  the  troops  raised 
for  the  defence  of  this  state  at  a  period  when  the  state 
was  left  unprotected — and  by  the  principles  of  which  our 
sons,  brothers,  and  friends,  are  made  liable  to  be  delivered 
against  their  will,  and  hy  force^  to  the  marshals  and  re- 
cruiting officers  of  the  United  States,  to  be  employed,  not 
'for  our  own  defence,  but  for  the  conquest  of  Canada,  or 
upon  any  foreign  service  upon  which  the  administration 
may  choose  to  send  them;  or  impose  upon  the  people  of 
this  state  'a  capitation  or  other  direct  tax,''  limited  by  no 
rules  but  the  will  of  officers  appointed  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States. 

"  And  whereas  the  principles  of  the  plan  and  bill  afore- 
said, are,  in  the  opinion  of  this  assembly,  not  only  intole- 
rably burdensome  and  oppressive,  but  utterly  subversive 
of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of  this  state,  and 
the  freedom,  sovereignty,  and  independence  of  the  same, 
and  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

''^  And  whereas  it  will  become  the.  imperious  duty  of  the 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  337 

legislature  of  this  state  to  exert  themselves  to  ward  off  a., 
blow  so  fatal  to  the  liberties  of  a  free  people — 

'^Resolved  by  this  Assembly — that  in  case  the  plan  and 
bill  aforesaid,  or  any  other  bill  on  that  subject,  containing 
the  principles  aforesaid,  shall  be  adopted,  and  assume  the 
form  of  an  act  of  Congress,  the  Governor  of  this  state  is 
hereby  requested  forthwith  to  convoke  the  General  Assem- 
bly ;  and  to  avoid  delay,  he  is  hereby  authorised  to  issue 
his  proclamation,  requiring  the  attendance  of  the  members 
thereof,  at  such  time  and  place  as  he  may  appoint,  to  the 
end  that  opportunity  may  be  given  to  consider  what  mea- 
sures may  be  adopted  to  secure  and  preserve  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  people  of  this  state,  and  the  freedom, 
sovereignty  and  independence  of  the  same." 

The  events  of  1814  have  been  already  referred  to. 
They  had  excited  strong  consternation  throughout  a  large 
portion  of  the  country,  and  particularly  in  the  New-Eng- 
land states,  where  the  exposure  to  invasion  was  pre-emi- 
nently great,  and  where  the  consequences  which  must 
ensue  such  a  hostile  visitation,  must  necessarily  prove  in 
the  highest  degree  disastrous.  The  national  government 
had  withdrawn  almost  all  their  troops  from  the  Atlantic 
frontier,  and  had  provided  nothing  for  the  safety  of  the 
inhabitants  beyond  a  single  military  officer  of  some  rank, 
(and  perhaps  a  small  number  of  soldiers,)  to  take  the 
oversight  of  a  certain  specified  portion  of  territory  which 
was  called  a  "military  district."  In  a  pamphlet  published 
in  Boston  in  1823,  it  is  said — "  In  the  summer  of  1814, 
the  war,  which  before  had  not  approached  nearer  than  the 
great  northern  lakes,  at  length  fell  unexpectedly  and  in 
an  alarming  manner  upon  the  borders  of  Massachusetts. 
The  English,  in  considerable  force,  captured  Castine,  a 
small  town  at  the  mouth  of  the  Penobscot,  and  in  a  short 
lime  had  the  absolute  control  of  all  that  part  of  Maine 
which  lies  to  the  eastward  of  that  great  river.  Intelli- 
gence was  shortly  received  by  express  at  head  quarters  in 
'  43 


^38  HISTORY   OF   THE 

Boston,  that  the  enemy  was  preparing  to  execute  without 
delay  a  more  extensive  invasion,  and  it  therefore  became 
necessary  to  take  measures  of  immediate  and  vigorous 
defence.  Under  these  distressing  and  disastrous  circum- 
stances. Governor  Strong  resolved  to  assemble  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature.  The  general  court  accordingly 
met  on  the  5th  day  of  October  of  the  same  year:  and  his 
excellency  commenced  his  message  in  the  following 
words ; — "  Since  your  last  adjournment  such  important 
changes  have  taken  place  in  the  state  of  our  public  affairs, 
and  the  war  in  which  we  have  been  unhappily  involved 
has  assumed  an  aspect  so  threatening  and  destructive,  that 
the  council  unanimously  concurred  with  me  in  opinion  that 
an  extraordinary  meeting  of  the  legislature  was  indispen- 
sable."  "  Two  days  after  the  session  began,  viz.  on 

the  7th  of  October,  a  resolution  approving  the  governor's 
conduct  as  it  related  to  the  defence  of  the  state,  passed 
the  house  by  a  vote  of  22^  to  59.  On  the  i3th  of  October 
another  resolution,  authorising  the  governor  to  raise  ten 
thousand  men  for  the  defence  of  the  state,  passed  the 
house  by  a  vote  of  2o2  to  71." 

In  addition  to  all  the  other  calamities  with  which  the 
country  was  visited,  in  the  year  1814,  a  large  proportion  of 
the  banks  in  the  states  south  of  New-England  had  refused 
to  pay  their  notes  in  specie,  in  consequence  of  which  the 
paper  currency  issued  by  such  banks  greatly  deprecia- 
ted, strong  fears  prevailed  that  they  were  insolvent,  and 
the  alarm  became  almost  universal.  As  a  natural  result 
of  the  excitement  which  was  caused  by  this  state  of 
things,  business  of  all  kinds  was  greatly  impeded  and 
embarrassed,  if  not  entirely  suspended  ;  to  such  a  degree 
had  the  fears  of  the  community  been  raisfed,  that  the  in- 
dividual who  was  under  the  necessity  of  travelling  from 
New- York  to  Boston,  found  himself  subjected  to  serious 
loss,  as  well  as  great  inconvenience,  in  consequence  of  the 
doubts  entertained  of  the  security  of  the  notes  circulated 


HARTFORD  CONVENTION.  339 

by  the  banks  of  the  former  city.  The  state  of  Connecticut, 
bordering  upon  the  state  of  New- York,  and  having  a  con- 
stant intercourse  with  its  inhabitants,  and  especially  rely- 
ing upon  the  city  of  New- York  as  the  great  market  for 
their  marketable  commodities,  received  New- York  bank 
paper  almost  exclusively  in  payment  for  those  commodi- 
ties ;  and  it  soon  became  a  question  of  much  importance, 
whether  it  was  safe  for  the  state  of  Connecticut  to  receive 
a  depreciated  and  depreciating  currency  of  another  state, 
in  payment  of  taxes,  which,  by  the  extraordinary  expen- 
ditures in  support  of  the  war,  and  especially  in  paying  the 
militia,  had  become  extremely  burthensome.  From  the 
high  tone  which,  in  their  public  communications,  the 
American  government  had  assumed,  when  treating  of  the 
subject  of  peace,  it  was  impossible  to  foresee,  or  even  to 
calculate  the  probable  duration  of  the  war.  If  they  ad- 
hered to  their  demands,  it  appeared  likely  to  be  intermi- 
nable, for  the  British,  having  been  extricated  from  the 
war  with  France,  were  left  at  full  liberty  to  devote  their 
undivided  attention  to  that  with  the  United  States.  And 
had  our  government  held  out — had  they  not  in  their  in- 
structions to  their  agents,  who  were  employed  in  nego- 
tiating for  peace,  empowered  them  to  abandon  every 
ground  and  principle  for  which  the  war  was  professedly 
undertaken,  there  is  no  room  to  doubt  that  the  year  1815 
would  have  been  the  most  fearful  period  that  had  ever 
marked  our  national  history.  The  events  of  1814  mani- 
fested a  spirit  of  resentment  on  the  part  of  the  British, 
from  which  it  was  easy  to  perceive  that  the  worst  passions 
would  attend,  and  the  most  vindictive  spirit  be  exhibited, 
in  the  further  prosecution  of  the  war.  There  was  nothing, 
therefore,  in  the  prospect,  that  was  calculated  to  afford  the 
slightest  relief  to  the  apprehensions  of  the  country,  re- 
specting the  hostile  movements  of  the  enemy,  during  the 
approaching  season.  On  the  contrary,  as  the  means  for 
carrying  on  the  war  were  in  a  great  measure  exhausted, 


340  HISTORY    OF   THE 

the  government  had  become  alarmed  for  their  own  po- 
pularity, and  were  obviously  preparing  to  resort  to  the 
most  desperate,  as  well  as  the  most  unconstitutional  mea- 
sures,  to  save  themselves  from  the  odium  which  they 
could  scarcely  hope  to  avoid, -if  hostilities  should  continue 
through  another  year,  and  the  utmost  alarm  prevailed  con- 
cerning the  result.  The  situation  of  the  New-England 
states  was  in  the  highest  degree  critical  and  dangerous. 
The  services  of  the  militia,  for  two  years,  had  been  ex- 
tremely severe,  they  w^ere  constantly  taken  from  their 
farms  and  their  ordinary  occupations,  and  in  addition  to 
all  the  losses  which  such  a  state  of  things  must  necessa- 
rily produce,  they  were  subjected  to  the  hardships  and 
hazards  of  a  camp,  and  the  life  of  a  soldier.  In  the  mean 
time,  the  United  States  had  withheld  all  supplies  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  militia  for  the  year  1814,  both  in  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Connecticut,  and  thus  forced  upon  the 
states  the  burden  of  supporting  the  troops  employed  in 
defending  their  coasts  from  invasion,  and  their  towns  from 
being  sacked  and  pillaged.  And  all  this  time,  the  taxes 
laid  to  carry  on  the  war  were  exacted  from  those  states 
with  the  most  rigorous  strictness  ;  and  when,  under  all 
these  circumstances,  the  monied  institutions  in  a  large  part 
of  the  country  were  stopping  payment,  when  their  credit 
was  shaken,  their  notes  depreciated,  and  their  solvency 
doubted,  the  capitalists  of  the  New-England  states,  be- 
cause they  did  not  deem  it  expedient  to  risk  their  private 
fortunes  by  loaning  money  to  the  government,  which  had 
wilfully  and  against  all  remonstrances,  brought  these 
multiplied  calamities  upon  themselves,  as  well  as  upon 
the  nation,  were  reviled  as  enemies  to  their  country  and 
as.  traitors  to  its  government.  It  had  become  perfectly 
apparent,  that  if  the  New-England  states  were  rescued 
frbm  the  effects  of  these  calamities  at  all,  it  must  depend, 
as  far  as  human  means  were  concerned,  upon  their  own 
exertions,  and  that  they  could  not  place  the  least  depend- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  341 

ance  on  the  national  government.  Indeed,  they  had  been 
repeatedly  told  that  such  was  the  state  of  things  by  the 
national  government. 

In  Massachusetts,  the  danger  to  which  the  inhabitants 
near  the  sea-coast  were  exposed,  had  spread  an  alarm 
throughout  the  commonwealth.  Early  in  the  year  1814, 
memorials  from  a  great  number  of  towns,  from  the  inte- 
rior as  well  as  near  the  coast,  were  forwarded  to  the  legis- 
lature, praying  that  body  to  exert  their  authority  to  pro- 
tect the  citizens  in  their  constiuitional  rights  and  privi- 
leges, and  suggesting  the  expediency  of  appointing  dele- 
gates, "  to  meet  delegates  from  such  other  states  as  might 
think  proper  to  appoint  them,  for  the  purpose  of  devising 
proper  measures  to  procure  the  united  efforts  of  the  com- 
mercial states,  to  obtain  such  amendments  and  explana- 
tions of  the  constitution  as  will  secure  them  from  further 
evils." 

These  memorials  were  referred  to  a  joint  committee  of 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  who  made  a 
report,  of  which  the  following,  in  relation  to  the  proposed 
convention,  is  an  extract — "  The  committee  are  convinced 
of  the  right,  and  think  the  legislature  ought  to  vindicate  it, 
of  acting  in  concert  with  other  states,  in  order  to  produce 
a  powerful,  and,  if  possible,  an  irresistible  claim  for  such 
alterations  as  will  tend  to.  preserve  the  Union,  and  restore 
violated  privileges,  yet  they  have  considered  that  there  are 
reasons  which  render  it  inexpedient  at  the  present  mo- 
ment to  exercise  this  power. 

"  The  committee  entertain  no  doubt,  that  the  sentiments 
and  feelings  expressed  in  the  numerous  memorials  and 
remonstrances  which  have  been  committed  to  them,  are 
the  genuine  voice  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  citizens  of  this 
commonwealth." 

This  report  bears  date  February  4th,  1814,  and  was 
adopted  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  23  to  8,  and  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  of  178  to  43. 


342  HISTORY    OF    THE 

On  tlie  16th  of  October  the  House  of  Representatives 
passed  the  following  resolution,  by  a  vote  of  2G0  to  90 — 

*'  Resolved,  That  twelve  persons  be  appointed  as  dele- 
gates from  this  Commonwealth,  to  meet  and  confer  with 
delegates  from  the  other  New-England  states,  or  any 
other,  upon  the  subject  of  their  public  grievances  and 
concerns ;  and  upon  the  best  means  of  preserving  our  re- 
sources ;  and  of  defence  against  the  enemy  ;  and  to  devise 
and  suggest  for  adoption  by  those  respective  states  such  mea- 
sures as  they  may  deem  expedient ;  and  also  to  take  mea- 
sures, if  they  shall  think  it  proper,  for  procuring  a  conven- 
tion of  delegates  from  all  the  United  States,  in  order  to 
revise  the  Constitution  thereof,  and  more  effectually  to 
secure  the  support  and  attachment  of  all  the  people,  by 
placing  all  upon  the  basis  of  fair  representation." 

The  Senate  having  concurred  in  passing  this  resolution, 
on  the  18th  of  October  the  Houses  in  convention  elected 
the  delegates  by  a  vote  of  226  to  67.  The  legislature 
directed  the  President  of  the  Senate,  and  the  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  to  make  known  as  speedily 
as  possible,  to  the  different  governments  of  the  Union  the 
proceedings  of  the  government  of  that  state.  Accordingly 
the  following  letter  was  written  by  those  two  officers  of  the 
government  to  the  executive  magistrates  of  the  other 
states. — 

''  Boston,  October  11th,  1814. 

"  Sir,— Your  Excellency  will  herewith  receive  certain 
resolutions  of  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  which  you 
are  respectfully  requested  to  take  thq  earliest  occasion  to 
lay  before  the  legislature  of  your  state,  together  with  this 
letter,  which  is  intended  as  an  invitation  to  them,  to  ap- 
point delegates,  if  they  shall  deem  it  expedient,  to  meet 
such  others  as  may  be  appointed  by  this  and  other  states, 
at  the  time  and  place  expressed  in  these  resolutions. 

"  The  fi^eneral  objects  of  the  proposed  conference  are, 


HARTFORD   CONVEJVTION.  343 

first,  to  deliberate  upon  the  dangers  to  which  the.^eastern 
section  of  the  Union  is  exposed  by  the  course  of  the  war, 
and  which  there  is  too  much  reason  to  believe  will  thickep 
round  them  in  its  progress,  and  to  devise,  if  practicable, 
means  of  security  and  defence  which  may  be  consistent 
with  the  preservation  of  their  resources  from  total  ruin, 
and  adapted  to  their  local  situation,  mutual  relations  and 
habits,  and  not  repuGxNANT  to  their  obligations  as 
MEMBERS  OF  THE  Union.  When  convened  for  this  object, 
which  admits  not  of  delay,  it  seems  also  expedient  to  sub- 
mit to  their  consideration,  the  inquiry,  whether  the  inte- 
rests of  these  states  demand  that  persevering  endeavours 
be  used  by  each  of  them  to  procure  such  amendments,  to  be 
effected  in  the  national  constitution,  as  may  secure  to  them 
equal  advantage,  and  whether,  if  in  their  judgment  this 
should  be  deemed  impracticable,  under  the  existing  pro- 
visions for  amending  that  instrument,  an  experiment  may 
be  made  without  disadvantage  to  the  nation,  for  obtaining 
a  convention  from  all  the  states  in  the  Union,  or  such  of 
them  as  approve  of  the  measure,  with  a  mew  to  obtain  such 
amendment, 

"  It  cannot  be  necessary  to  anticipate  objections  to  the 
measure  which  may  arise  from  jealousy  or  fear.  This  le- 
gislature is  content,  for  its  justification,  to  repose  on  the 
purity  of  its  own  motives,  and  upon  the  known  attachment 
of  its  constituents  to  the  national  union,  and  to  the  rights  and 
independence  of  their  country, 

'*  We  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 
"John  Phillips, 

"  President  of  the  Senate  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts. 

"  Timothy  Bigelow, 

"  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  said  Commonwealth." 

The  documents  from  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
which  have  just  been  quoted,  were  transmitted  to  the  legis- 
latures of  Connecticat  and  Rhode  Island.     The  General 


344  HISTORY    OF   THE 

Assembly  of  Connecticut  were  then  in  session,  and  the 
documents  were  communicated  to  the  two  houses,  and  by 
them  werejceferred  to  a  joint  committee,  who  thereupon 
made  the  following  report — 

"  At  a  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Connecticut, 
holden  at  New-Haven,  in  said  state,  on  the  second  Thurs- 
day of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fourteen. 

"  To  the  Honourable  the  General  Assembly  now  in  ses- 
sion. The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  speech 
of  his  excellency  the  governor,  with  the  documents  accom- 
panying the  same,  and  also  his  excellency's  message,  pre- 
senting a  communication  from  the  governour  of  Massa- 
chusetts ;  further  report, — 

"  That  the  condition  of  this  state  demands  the  most  se- 
rious attention  of  the  Legislature.  We  lately  enjoyed,  in 
common  with  the  other  members  of  tlie  national  confede- 
racy, the  blessings  of  peace.  The  industry  of  our  citizens, 
in  every  department  of  active  life,  was  abundantly  re- 
warded ;  our  cities  and  villages  exhibited  indications  of 
increasing  wealth  ;  and  the  foreign  relations  of  the  Union 
secured  our  safety  and  nourished  our  prosperity. 

"  The  scene  is  now  reversed.  We  are  summoned  to 
the  field  of  war,  and  to  surrender  our  treasures  for  our  de- 
fence. The  fleets  of  a  powerful  enemy  hover  on  our 
coasts;  blockade  our  harbours;  and  threaten  our  towns 
and  cities  with  fire  and  desolation. 

*'  When  a  commonwealth  suddenly  frills  from  a  state  of 
high  prosperity,  it  behoves  the  guardians  of  its  interests  to 
inquire  into  the  cause  of  its  decline,  and,  with  deep  solici- 
tude, to  seek  a  remedy. 

"  In  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century,  a  spirit  of  daring 
enterprise — impatient  of  restraint — regardless  of  the  sanc- 
tions of  religion — hostile  to  human  happiness,  and  aspiring 
to  supreme  power — overturned  many  ancient  govern- 
ments ;  made  Europe  a  scene  of  carnage,  and  threatened 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  345 

with  ruin  all  which  was  valuable  in  the  civilized  world. 
The  history  of  its  progress  and  decline  is  familiar  to  every 
mind.  Nations  without  the  reach  of  the  immense  physi- 
cal power  which  it  embodied,  were  tainted  by  its  corrup- 
tions ;  and  every  state  and  province  in  Christendom  has  felt 
its  baneful  influences.  By  the  pure  principles  inherited 
from  our  fathers,  conducive,  at  once,  to  the  preservation  of 
liberty  and  order,  this  state  has  been  eminently  exempt,  in 
its  interior  policy,  from  this  modern  scourge  of  nations. 
In  thus  withstanding  this  potent  adversary  of  all  ancient 
establishments,  while  many  monarchies  have  been  sub- 
verted, we  have  exhibited  to  the  world  the  highest  evi- 
dence that  a  free  constitution  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
strength  of  civil  government,  and  that  the  virtue  of  a  peo- 
ple is  the  best  preservation  of  both. 

"  Occupying  a  comparatively  small  territory,  and  natu- 
rally associating,  during  the  revolutionary  war,  with  states 
whose  views  were  identified  with  ours,  our  interests  and 
inclinations  led  us  to  unite  in  the  great  national  compact, 
since  defined  and  consolidated  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  We  had  justly  anticipated,  from  that 
union,  the  preservation  and  advancement  of  our  dearest 
rights  and  interests ;  and  while  the  father  of  his  country, 
and  those  other  great  and  wise  men, — who,  mindful  of  their 
high  duties,  and  regardless  of  local  and  party  conside- 
rations, consulted  the  happiness  of  the  commonwealth, 
guided  cur  councils,  we  were  not  disappointed  in  our  ex- 
pectations. The  federal  government,  in  which  our  own 
venerable  statesmen  were  conspicuous,  was  revered  in 
every  nation.  An  American  in  foreign  lands,  was  ho- 
noured for  his  country's  sake :  a  rich  and  virtuous  popula- 
tion was  rapidly  reducing  the  limits  of  our  extensive  wil- 
derness ;  and  the  commerce  of  America  was  in  every  sea. 

"  But  a  coalition,  not  less  evident  than  if  defined  by  the 
articles  of  a  formal  treaty,  arose  between  the  national  ad- 
ministration and  that  fearful  tyrant  in  Europe,  who  was 

44 


346  HISTORY   OF    THE 

aspiring  to  the  dominion  of  the  world.  No  means,  how* 
ever  destruc1;iv  e  to  the  commerce  and  hazardous  to  the 
peace  of  this  countr}^,  were  left  unattempted,  to  aid  his 
efforts'  and  unite  our  interests  and  destinies  with  hisr 
From  this  fatal  cause,  we  are  bereft  of  the  respectable 
standing  wc  once  held  in  the  councils  of  the  nation  ;  im- 
poverished by  a  long  course  of  commercial  restrictions; 
involved  in  an  odious  and  disastrous  war  ;  and  subjected 
to  all  the  complicated  calamities  which  we  now  deplores 
"  Thus  driven  from  every  object  of  our  best  hopes,  and 
bound  to  an  inglorious  struggle  in  defence  of  our  dwellings 
from  a  public  enemy;  we  had  no  apprehension,  much  a& 
we  had  suffered  from  the  national  government,  that  it 
would  refuse  to  yield  us  such  protection  as  its  treasures- 
might  afford.  Much  less  could  we  doubt,  that  those  dis- 
bursements, which  might  be  demanded  of  this  state,  would 
be  passed  to  our  credit  on  the  books  of  the  treasury.  Such 
however  has  not  been  the  course  adopted  by  the  national 
agents.  All  supplies  have  been  withdrawn  from  the  mili- 
tia of  this  state,  in  the  service  of  the  United  States.  The 
groundless  pretext  for  this  unwarrantable  measure,  was, 
their  submission  to  an  officer  assigned  them  by  the  com- 
mander in  chief,  in  perfect  conformity  with  military  usage, 
and  the  principles  of  a  request  from  the  President  himself, 
under  which  a  party  of  them  were  detached.  The  injus- 
tice of  that  measure,  by  which  we  were  compelled  to  sus- 
tain alone  the  burden  of  supplying  and  paying  our  own 
forces,  in  the  service  of  the  United  States — a  service  ren- 
dered necessary  to  defend  our  territory  from  invasion — is 
highly  aggravated  by  the  consideration,  that  the  dangers 
which  called  them  to  the  field,  and  the  concentration  of 
the  enemy's  forces  on  our  coasts,  have  resulted  from  the 
ships  of  the  U-nited  States  having  taken  refuge  in  our  wa- 
ters. Were  this  the  only  instance  evincive  of  the  disre- 
gard of  the  administration  to  the  just  claims  and  best  in- 
terests of  this  state, — the  only  ground  to  fear  that  we  are 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION. 


347 


forgotten  in  their  councils,  except  as  subjects  of  taxation 
and  oppression, — we  should  choose  to  consider  it  an  in- 
stance anomalous  and  solitary— still  yield  them  our  confi- 
dence, and  hope  for  protection  to  the  extent  of  their  power, 
in  this  season  of  unusual  calamity. 

*«  Protection  isthe  first,  and  most  important  claim  of  these 
states  on  the  government  of  the  nation.  It  is  a  primary 
condition,  essential  to  the  very  obligation  of  every  compact 
between  rulers  and  their  subjects.  To  obtain  that,  as  a 
principal  object,  Connecticut  became  a  member  of  the  na- 
tional confederacy.  In  a  defensive  war,  a  government 
would  stand  justified,  after  making  a  fair  application  of  its 
powers  to  that  important  end  ; — for  it  could  do  no  more. 
But  when  a  government  hastily  declares  war,  without  pro- 
viding the  indisj)ensable  means  of  conducting  it — want  of 
means  is  no  apology  for  refusing  protection.  In  such  a 
case,  the  very  declaration  of  war,  is,  of  itself,  a  breach  of 
the  sacred  obligation;  inasmuch  as  the  loss  of  protection 
by  the  subject,  is  the  natural  and  inevitable  consequence 
of  the  measure.  When  that  war  annihilates  the  only  re- 
venues of  the  nation,  the  violation  of  the  original  contract 
is  still  more  palpable.  If  waged  for  foreign  conquest,  and 
the  wreck  of  the  national  treasures  devoted  to  a  fruitless 
invasion  of  the  enemy's  territory,  the  character  of  the  act 
is  more  criminal,  but  not  more  clear. 

'*  Whatever  may  be  the  disposition  of  the  national  Exe- 
cutive towards  this  state,  during  the  sequel  of  the  war,  such 
is  the  condition  of  the  public  finances,  that  constant  and 
very  great  advances  must  be  made  from  our  state  treasury, 
to  meet  the  expenditures  necessary  for  our  own  defence. 

*'But  the  utmost  efforts  of  this  state,  under  the  most  fa- 
vourable circumstances  for  raising  revenue,  would  be  hardly 
adequate  to  the  costly  operations  of  defending,  against  a 
great  naval  power,  a  sea-coast  of  more  than  one  hundred 
and  twenty  miles  in  length  ;  much  less,  at  this  inauspicious 
period,  when  the  distresses  of  the  people  are  enhanced  b;^ 


348  HISTORY    OF   THE 

the  embarrassments  of  our  monied  institutions,  and  the 
circulating-  medium  constantly  diminishing,  can  any  thing 
be  spared  consistently  with  our  safety.  Yet  the  national 
government  are  dooming  us  to  enormous  taxation,  without 
affording  any  just  confidence  that  we  shall  share  in  the 
expenditures  of  the  public  revenue.  The  invasion  of  Ca- 
nada is  perseveringly  pursued,  our  coasts  left  defenceless, 
and  the  treasures  of  the  country  exhausted  on  more  fa- 
voured points  of  the  national  frontier.  To  meet  those  de- 
mands, and,  at  the  same  time,  to  defend  ourselves,  is  im- 
possible. Whatever  we  may  contribute,  we  have  no  rea- 
sonable ground  to  expect  protection  in  return. 

*'  The  people  of  this  state  have  no  disloyalty  to  the  inte- 
rests of  the  Union.  For  their  fidelity  and  patriotism,  they 
may  appeal,  with  confidence,  to  the  national  archives  from 
the  commencement  of  the  revolutionary  war. 

"  In  achieving  the  independence  of  the  nation,  they  bore 
an  honourable  part.     Their  contingent  in  men  and  money 
has  ever  been  promptly  furnished,  when  constitutionally 
required.     Much   as  they   lament  the  present   unnatural 
hostilities  with  Great  Britain,  they  have,  with  characteris- 
tic obedience  to  lawful  authority,  punctually  paid  the  late 
taxes  imposed  by  the  general  government.     On  every  law- 
ful demand  of  the  national  Executive,  their  well-disciplined 
militia  have  resorted  to  the  field.    The  public  enemy,  when 
invading  their  shores,  has  been  met  at  the  water's  edge, 
and  valiantly  repulsed.     They  duly  appreciate  the  great 
advantages  which  would  result  from  the  federal  compact, 
were  the  government  administered  according  to  the  sacred 
principles  of  the  constitution.    They  have  not  forgotten  the 
ties  of  confidence  and  affection,  which  bound  these  states 
to  each  other   during  their  toils  for  independence ; — nor 
the  national  honour  and  commercial  prosperity,  which  they 
mutually  shared,  during  the  happy  years  of  a  good  admi- 
nistration.    They  are,  at  the  same  time,  conscious  of  their 
rights  and  determined  to  defend  them.     Those  sacred  li- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  349 

berties — ^those  inestimable  institutions,  civil  and  religious, 
which  their  venerable  fathers  have  bequeathed  them,  are, 
with  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  to  be  maintained  at  every 
hazard,  and  never  to  be  surrendered  by  tenants  of  the  soil 
which  the  ashes  of  their  ancestors  have  consecrated. 

"In  what  manner  the  multiplied  evils,  which  we  feel 
and  fear,  are  to  be  remedied,  is  a  question  of  the  highest 
moment,  and  deserves  the  greatest  consideration.  The 
documents  transmitted  by  his  excellency  the  Governor  of 
Massachusetts,  present,  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee, 
an  eligible  method  of  combining  the  wisdom  of  New- 
England,  in  devising,  on  full  consultation,  a  proper  course 
to  be  adopted,  consistent  with  our  obligations  to  the  United 
States.  The  following  resolutions  are,  therefore,  respect- 
fully submitted. 

**  Signed  by  order, 

**  Henry  Champion,  Chairman,'' 

"  General  Assembly,  October  Session,  1814. 

*'In  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  foregoing  report 
is  accepted  and  approved. 

"Attest.     Charles  Denison,  Clerk" 
"  Concurred  in  by  the  Upper  House. 

'*  Attest.     Thomas  Day,  Secretary.'"' 

"  Resolved,  That  seven  persons  be  appointed  Delegates 
from  this  state,  to  meet  the  delegates  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts,  and  of  any  other  of  the  New- 
England  states,  at  Hartford,  on  the  15th  day  of  Decem- 
ber next,  and  confer  with  them  on  the  subjects  proposed 
by  a  resolution  of  said  Commonwealth,  communicated  to 
this  legislature,  and  upon  any  other  subjects  which  may 
come  before  them,  for  the  purpose  of  devising  and  recom- 
mending such  measures  for  the  safety  and  welfare  of  these 

states,  AS  MAY  CONSIST  WITH  OUR  OBLIGATIONS  AS  MEM- 
BERS OF  THE  National  Union. 


350  HISTORY   OF   THE 

"  Resolved,  That  his  excellency  the  Governor  be  re- 
quested to  transmit  the  foregoing  report  and  resolutions 
to  the  Executives  of  the  New-England  states. 

*•  This  Assembly  do  appoint  his  honour  Chauncey  Good- 
rich, the  honourable  James  Hillhouse,  the  honourable 
John  Treadvvell,  the  honourable  Zephaniah  Swift,  the  ho- 
nourable Nathaniel  Smith,  the  honourable  Calvin  Goddard 
and  the  honourable  Koger  M.  Sherman,  Delegates  from 
this  state,  to  meet  the  Delegates  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts  a. id  of  any  other  of  the  New-England  states, 
at  Hartford,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  December  next,  and 
confer  with  them  on  the  subjects  proposed  by  a  resolution 
of  said  Commonwealth,  communicated  to  this  Legislature, 
and  upon  any  other  subjects  which  may  come  before  them, 
for  the  purpose  of  devising  and  recommending  such  mea- 
sures for  the  safety  and  welfare  of  these  states  as  may  con- 
sist with  our  obligations  as  members  of  the  national  UnioUc 

**The  above  and  foregoing  are  true  copies  of  record, 
examined  and  certified  under  the  seal  of  the  state,  by 
"  Thomas  Day,  Secretary.^' 

The  following  is  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
legislature  of  Rhode-Island  on  this  subject — 

**  State  of  Rhode-Island  and 

Providence  Plantations. 

"  Jn  General  Assembly ,  Ocioher  Session,  A.  D.  1814. 

'•  Whereas  this  General  Assembly,  having  long  witness- 
ed with  regret  and  anxiety,  the  defenceless  situation  of 
this  state,  did,  at  their  last  session,  request  his  excellency 
the  governor  to  communicate  with  the  executives  of  our 
neighbouring  sister  states  upon  the  subject  of  our  common 
defence  by  our  mutual  co-operation  :  and  whereas  those 
states  feeling  equally  with  us  the  common  misfortunes, 
and  the  necessity  of  united  exertions,  have  appointed  and 


HARTFORD    CONVEx\TION.  851 

invited  us  to  appoint  delegates  to  meet  and  confer  upon 
our  calamitous  situation,  and  to  devise  and  recommend 
wise  and  prudent  measures  for  our  common  relief. 

"  Resolved,  That  this  General  Assembly  will  appoint  four 
delegates  from  this  state,  to  meet  at  Hartford  in  the  state 
of  Connecticut,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  December  next,  and 
confer  with  such  delegates  as  are  or  shall  be  appointee!  by 
other  states,  upon  the  common  dangers  to  which  these 
states  are  exposed,  upon  the  best  means  of  co-operating 
for  our  mutual  defence  against  the  enemy,  and  upon  the 
measures  which  it  may  be  in  the  power  of  said  states,  con- 
sistently with  their  obligations  to  adopt,  to  restore  and  se- 
cure to  the  people  thereof,  their  rights  and  privileges  under 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

*'  True  copy — witness, 

"  Henry  Bowen,  SecWy,'* 

"Both  houses  having  joined  in  grand  committee,  chose 
Daniel  Lyman,  Samuel  Ward,  Benjamin  Hazard,  and 
Edward  Manton,  Esquires,  delegates  from  this  state,  to 
meet  at  Hartfonl  in  the  state  of  Connecticut,  on  the  fif- 
teenth day  of  December  next,  and  confer  with  delegates 
from  other  states,  pursuant  to  a  resolution  for  this  purpose 
passed  at  the  present  session. 

**  True  copy — witness 

"  Henry  Bowen,  Sec'ryJ*' 

On  the  15th  of  December,  1814,  the  Convention  met  at 
Hartford,  in  the  state  of  Connecticut.  There  were  twelve 
members  from  Massachusetts,  viz.  George  Cabot,  Nathan 
Dane,  William  Prescott,  Harrison  Gray  Otis,  Timothy 
Bigebw,  Joshua'Thomas,  Samuel  Sumner  Wilde,  Joseph 
Lyman,  George  Bliss,  Stephen  Longfellow,  Jun.  Daniel 
Waldo,  and  Hodijah  Baylies.  From  Connecticut  there 
were  seven  members,  viz.  Chauncey  Goodrich,  J6hn 
Treadvvell,  James  Hillhouse,  Zephaniah  Swift,  Nathaniel 


353  HISTORY  OF  the 

Smith,  Calvin  Goddard,  and  Roger  Minot  Sherman.  From 
Rhode  [sland  there  were  four,  viz.  Daniel  Lyman,  Samu- 
el Ward,  Edward  Manton,  and  Benjamin  Hazard.  Three 
persons,  viz.  Benjamin  West  and  Mills  Olcott,  from  New- 
Hampshire,  and  William  Hall,  Jun.  of  Vermont,  who  ap- 
peared as  delegates  chosen  by  local  conventions  in  those 
states,  were  also  admitted  as  members.  Immediately  upon 
being  assembled,  they  proceeded  to  the  choice  of  officers. 
George  Cabot,  a  member  from  Massachusetts,  was  chosen 
president,  and  the  author  of  this  work  secretary.  Having 
thus  become  organized,  they  proceeded  in  the  performance 
of  the  business  for  which  they  had  been  delegated;  and 
after  a  session  of  three  weeks,  embodied  the  result  of  their 
labours  in  the  following  report — 

«  REFOUT,    6Le, 

"  The  delegates  from  the  legislatures  of  the  states  of  Massachusetts^ 
Connecticut^  and  Rhode-Island^  and  from  the  counties  of  Grafton 
and  Cheshire  in  the  state  of  Xew- Hampshire  and  the  county  of 
Windham  in  the  state  of  Vermont,  assembled  in  convention,  beg 
leave  to  report  the  following  result  of  their  conference. 

*'  The  convention  is  deeply  impressed  with  a  sense  of  the 
arduous  nature  of  the  commission  which  they  were  ap- 
pointed to  execute,  of  devising  the  means  of  defence  against 
dangers,  and  of  relief  from  oppressions  proceeding  from 
the  acts  of  their  own  governinent,  without  violating  con- 
stitutional principles,  or  disappointing  the  hopes  of  a  suf- 
fering and  injured  people.  To  prescribe  patience  and 
firmness  to  those  who  are  already  exhausted  by  distress, 
is  sometimes  to  drive  them  to  despair,  and  the  progress 
towards  reform  by  the  regular  road,  is  irksome  to  those 
whose  imaginations  discern,  and  whose  feelings  prompt, 
to  a  shorter  course.  But  when  abuses,  reduced  to  a  sys- 
tem, and  accumulated  through  a  course  of  years,  have  per- 
vaded every  department  of  government,  and  spread  cor- 
ruption through  every  region  of  the  state  ;  when  these  are 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  353 

clothed  with  the  forms  of  law,  and  enforced  by  an  execu- 
tive whose  will  is  their  source,  no  summary  means  of  re- 
lief can  be  applied  without  recourse  to  direct  and  open 
resistance.  This  experiment,  even  when  justifiable,  can- 
not fail  to  be  painful  to  the  good  citizen ;  and  the  success 
of  the  effort  will  be  no  security  against  the  danger  of  the 
example.  Precedents  of  resistance  to  the  worst  adminis- 
tration, are  eagerly  seized  by  those  who  are  naturally 
hostile  to  the  best.  Necessity  alone  can  sanction  a  resort 
to  this  measure  ;  and  it  should  never  be  extended  in  dura- 
tion or  degree  beyond  the  exigency,  until  the  people,  not 
merely  in  the  fervour  of  sudden  excitement,  but  after  full 
deliberation,  are  determined  to  change  the  constitution. 

*'  It  is  a  truth,  not  to  be  concealed,  that  a  sentiment  pre- 
vails to  no  inconsiderable  extent,  that  administration  have 
given  such  constructions  to  that  instrument,  and  practised 
so  many  abuses  under  colour  of  its  authority,  that  the 
time  for  a  change  is  at  band.  Those  who  so  believe,  re-_ 
gard  the  evils  which  surround  them  as  intrinsic  and  incu- 
rable defects  in  the  constitution.  They  yield  to  a  persua- 
sion, that  no  change,  at  any  time,  or  on  any  occasion,  can 
aggravate  the  misery  of  their  country.  This  opinion  may 
ultimately  prove  to  he  correct.  But  as  the  evidence  on 
which  it  rests  is  not  yet  conclusive,  and  as  measures 
adopted  upon  the  assumption  of  its  certainty  might  be  irre- 
vocable, some  general  considerations  are  submitted,  in  the 
hope  of  reconciling  all  to  a  course  of  moderation  and  firm- 
ness, which  may  save  them  from  the  regret  incident  to 
sudden  decisions,  probably  avert  the  evil,  or  at  least  insure 
-consolation  and  success  in  the  last  resort. 

"  The  constitution  of  the  United  States,  under  the  auspi- 
ces of  a  wise  and  virtuous  administration,  proved  itself 
competent  to  all  the  objects  of  national  prosperity  com- 
prehended in  the  views  of  its  framers.  No  parallel  can 
be  found  in  history,  of  a  transition  so  rapid  as  that  of  the 
United  States  from  the  lowest  depression  to  the  highest 

45 


354         '  HISTORY   OF   THE 

felicity — from  the  condition  of  weak  and  disjointed  repub- 
lics, to  that  of  a  great,  united,  and  prosperous  nation. 

"  Although  this  high  state  of  public  happiness  has  under- 
gone a  miserable  and  afflicting  reverse,  through  the  pre- 
valence of  a  weak  and  profligate  policy,  yet  the  evils  and 
afflictions  which  have  thus  been  induced  upon  the  country, 
are  not  peculiar  to  any  form  of  government.  The  lu&t 
and  caprice  of  power,  the  corruption  of  patronage,  the 
oppression  of  the  weaker  interests  of  the  community  by 
the  stronger,  heavy  taxes,  wasteful  expenditures,  and  un- 
just and  ruinous  wars,  are  the  natural  offspring  of  bad 
administrations,  in  all  ages  and  countries.  It  was  indeed 
to  be  hoped,  that  the  rulers  of  these  states  would  not 
make  such  disastrous  haste  to  involve  their  infancy  in  the 
embarrassments  of  old  and  rotten  institutions.  Yet  all 
this  have  they  done  ;  and  their  conduct  calls  loudly  for 
their  dismission  and  disgrace.  But  to  attempt  upon  every 
abuse  of  power  to  change  the  constitution,  would  be  to 
perpetuate  the  evils  of  revolution. 

"  Again,  the  experiment  of  the  powers  of  the  constitu- 
tion to  regain  its  vigour,  and  of  the  people  to  recover  from 
their  delusions,  has  been  hitherto  made  under  the  greatest 
possible  disadvantages  arising  from  the  state  of  the  world. 
The  fierce  passions  which  have  convulsed  the  nations  of 
Europe,  have  passed  the  ocean,  and  finding  their  way  to 
the  bosoms  of  our  citizens,  have  afforded  to  administra- 
tion the  means  of  perverting  public  opinion,  in  respect  to 
our  foreign  relations,  so  as  to  acquire  its  aid  in  the  indul- 
gence of  their  animosities,  and  the  increase  of  their  adhe- 
rents. Further,  a  reformation  of  public  opinion,  resulting 
from  dear-bought  experience,  in  the  southern  Atlantic 
states,  at  least,  is  not  to  be  despaired  of.  They  will  have 
felt,  that  the  eastern  states  cannot  be  made  exclusively 
the  victims  of  a  capricious  and  impassioned  policy.  They 
will  have  seen  that  the  great  and  essential  interests  of  the 
people  are  common  to  the  south  and  to  the  east.     They 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  355 

will  realize  the  fatal  errors  of  a  system  which  seeks  re- 
venge for  commercial  injuries  in  the  sacrifice  of  com- 
merce, and  aggravates  by  needless  wars,  to  an  immeasu- 
rable extent,  the  injuries  it  professes  to  redress.  They 
may  discard  the  influence  of  visionary  theorists,  and  re- 
cognize the  benefits  ©f  a  practical  policy.  Indications  of 
this  desirable  revolution  of  opinion,  among  our  brethren 
in  those  states,  are  already  manifested.  Whilp  a  hope 
remains  of  its  ultimate  completion,  its  progress  should  not 
be  retarded  or  stopped,  by  exciting  fears  which  must 
check  these  favourable  tendencies,  and  frustrate  the  efforts 
of  the  wisest  and  best  men  in  those  states,  to  accelerate 
this  propitious  change. 

"  Finally,  if  the  Union  be  destined  to  dissolution,  by  rea- 
son of  the  multiplied  abuses  of  bad  administrations,  it  should, 
if  possible,  be  the  work  of  peaceable  times,  and  deliberate 
consent.  Some  new  form  of  confederacy  should  be  sub- 
stituted among  those  states  which  shall  intend  to  maintain 
a  federal  relation  to  each  other.  Events  may  prove  that 
the  causes  of  our  calamities  are  deep  and  permanent. 
They  may  be  found  to  proceed,  not  merely  from  the  blind- 
ness of  prejudice,  pride  of  opinion,  violence  of  party  spirit, 
or  the  confusion  of  the  times ;  but  they  may  be  traced  to 
implacable  combinations  of  individuals,  or  of  states,  to 
monopolize  power  and  ofiice,  and  to  trample  without  re- 
morse upon  the  rights  and  interests  of  commercial  sections 
of  the  Union.  Whenever  it  shall  appear  that  these  causes 
are  radical  and  permanent,  a  separation,  by  equitable  ar- 
rangement, will  be  preferable  to  an  alliance  by  constraint, 
among  nominal  friends,  but  real  enemies,  inflamed  by 
mutual  hatred  and  jealousy,  and  inviting,  by  intestine  divi- 
sions, contempt  and  aggression  from  abroad.  But  a  seve- 
rance of  the  Union  by  one  or  more  states,  against  the  will 
of  the  rest,  and  especially  in  a  time  of  war,  can  be  justified 
only  by  absolute  necessity.  These  are  among  the  princi- 
pal objections  against  precipitate  measures  tending  to  di^- 


356  HISTORY    OF    THE 

unite  the  states,  and  when  examined  in  connection  with 
the  farewell  address  of  the  Father  of  his  country,  thej 
must,  it  is  believed,  be  deemed  conclusive. 

*'  Under  these  impressions,  the  convention  have  proceed- 
ed to  confer  and  deliberate  upon  the  alarming  state  of  pub- 
lic affairs,  especially  as  affecting  the  interests  of  the  peo- 
ple who  have  appointed  them  for  this  purpose,  and  they  are 
naturally  led  to  a  consideration,  in  the  first  place,  of  the 
dangers  and  grievances  which  menace  an  immediate  or 
speedy  pressure,  with  a  view  of  suggesting  means  of  pre- 
sent relief;  in  the  next  place,  of  such  as  are  of  a  more  re- 
mote and  general  description,  in  the  hope  of  attaining  fu- 
ture security. 

"  Among  the  subjects  of  complaint  and  apprehension, 
which  might  be  comprised  under  the  former  of  these  pro- 
positions, the  attention  of  the  convention  has  been  occupi- 
ed with  the  claims  and  pretensions  advanced,  and  the  au- 
thority exercised  over  the  militia,  by  the  executive  and 
legislative  departments  of  the  national  government.  Also, 
upon  the  destititfion  of  the  means  of  defence  in  which  the 
eastern  states  are  left ;  while  at  the  same  time  they  are 
doomed  to  heavy  requisitions  of  men  and  money  for  na- 
tional objects. 

*'  The  authority  of  the  national  government  over  the  mili- 
tia is  derived  from  those  clauses  in  the  constitution  which 
give  power  to  Congress  '  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the 
militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrec- 
tions and  repel  invasions  ;' — Also  '  to  provide  for  organiz- 
ing, arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for  govern- 
ing such  parts  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  states  respectively 
the  appointment  of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of  train- 
ing the  militia  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by 
Congress.'  Again,  '  the  President  shall  be  commander 
in  chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  states,  when  called  into 

i 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  357 

the  actual  service  of  the  United  States.^  In  these  specified 
cases  only,  has  the  national  government  any  power  over 
the  militia  ;  and  it  follows  conclusively,  that  for  all  general 
and  ordinary  purposes,  this  power  belongs  to  the  states 
respectively,  and  to  them  alone.  It  is  not  only  with  regret, 
but  with  astonishment,  the  convention  perceive  that  under 
colour  of  an  authority  conferred  with  such  plain  and  pre- 
cise limitations,  a  power  is  arrogated  by  the  executive 
government,  and  in  some  instances  sanctioned  by  the  two 
houses  of  congress,  of  control  over  the  militia,  which  if 
conceded  will  render  nugatory  the  rightful  authority  of  the 
individual  states  over  that  class  of  men,  and  by  placing  at 
the  disposal  of  the  national  government  the  lives  and  ser- 
vices of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  enable  it  at  plea- 
sure to  destroy  their  liberties,  and  erect  a  military  despo- 
tism on  the  ruins. 

*'  An  elaborate  examination  of  the  principles  assumed  for 
the  basis  of  these  extravagant  pretensions,  of  the  conse- 
quences to  which  they  lead,  and  of  the  insurmountable 
objections  to  their  admission,  would  transcend  the  limits 
of  this  report.  A  few  general  observations,  with  an  exhi- 
bition of  the  character  of  these  pretensions,  and  a  recom- 
mendation of  a  strenuous  opposition  to  them,  must  not, 
however,  be  omitted. 

"  It  will  not  be  contended  that  by  the  terms  used  in  the 
constitutional  compact,  the  power  of  the  national  govern- 
ment to  call  out  the  militia  is  other  than  a  power  express- 
ly limited  to  three  cases.  One  of  these  must  exist,  as  a 
condition  precedent  to  the  exercise  of  that  power — Unless 
the  laws  shall  be  opposed,  or  an  insurrection  shall  exist, 
or  an  invasion  shall  be  made,  congress,  and  of  consequence 
the  President  as  their  organ,  has  no  more  power  over  the 
militia  than  over  the  armies  of  a  foreign  nation. 

*'  But  if  the  declaration  of  the  President  should  be  admit- 
ted to  be  an  unerring  test  of  the  existence  of  these  cases, 
this  important  power  would  depend,  not  upon  the  truth  of 


358  HISTORY    OF   THE 

the  fact,  but  upon  executive  infallibility.  And  the  limita- 
tion of  the  power  would  consequently  be  nothing  more 
than  merely  nominal,  as  it  might  always  be  eluded.  It 
follows  therefore  that  the  decision  of  the  President  in  this 
particular  cannot  be  conclusive.  It  is  as  much  the  duty 
of  the  state  authorities  to  watch  over  the  rights  reserved, 
as  of  the  United  States  to  exercise  the  powers  which  are 
delegated. 

*'  The  arrangement  of  the  United  States  into  military 
districts,  with  a  small  portion  of  the  regular  force,  under 
an  officer  of  high  rank  of  the  standing  army,  with  power  to 
call  for  the  militia,  as  circumstances  in  his  judgment  may 
require  ;  and  to  assume  the  command  of  them,  is  not  war- 
ranted by  the  constitution  or  any  law  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  not  denied  that  Congress  may  delegate  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  the  power  to  call  forth  the  militia 
in  the  cases  which  are  within  their  jurisdiction — But  he 
has  no  authority  to  substitute  military  prefects  throughout 
the  Union,  to  use  their  own  discretion  in  such  instances. 
To  station  an  officer  of  the  army  in  a  military  district  with- 
out troops  corresponding  to  his  rank,  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  com^^and  of  the  militia  that  may  be  called  into  ser- 
vice, is  a  manifest  evasion  of  that  provision  of  the  consti- 
tution which  expressly  reserves  to  the  states  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  officers  of  the  militia ;  and  the  object  of  de- 
taching such  officer  cannot  be  well  concluded  to  be  any 
other  than  that  of  superseding  the  governor  or  other  offi^ 
cers  of  the  militia  in  their  right  to  command. 

"  The  power  cf  dividing  the  militia  of  the  states  into 
classes,  and  obliging  such  classes  to  furnish  by  contract  or 
draft,  able-bodied  men,  to  serve  for  one  or  more  years 
for  the  defence  of  the  frontier,  is  not  delegated  to  Con- 
gress. If  a  claim  to  draft  the  militia  for  one  year  for 
sOch  general  object  be  admissible,  no  limitation  can  be 
assigned  to  it,  but  the  discretion  of  those  who  make  the 
law.     Thus,  with  a  power  in  Congress  to  authorize  such 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  359 

a  draft  or  conscription,  and  in  the  Executive  to  decide 
conclusively  upon  the  existence  and  continuance  of  the 
emergency,  the  whole  militia  may  be  converted  into  a 
standing  army  disposable  at  the  will  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States. 

"  The  power  of  compelling  the  militia,  and  other  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  by  a  forcible  draft  or  conscrip- 
tion, to  serve  in  the  regular  armies  as  proposed  in  a  late 
official  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  is  not  delegated 
to  Congress  by  the  constitution,  and  the  exercise  of  it 
would  be  not  less  dangerous  to  their  liberties,  than  hostile 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  states.  The  eflbrt  to  deduce 
this  power  from  the  right  of  raising  armies,  is  a  flagrant 
attempt  to  pervert  the  sense  of  the  clause  in  the  constitu- 
tion which  confers  that  right,  and  is  incompatible  with 
other  provisions  in  that  instrument.  The  armies  of  the 
United  States  have  always  been  raised  by  contract,  never 
by  conscription,  and  nothing  more  can  be  wanting  to  a 
government  possessing  the  power  thus  claimed  to  enable 
it  to  usurp  the  entire  control  of  the  militia,  in  derogation 
of  the  authority  of  the  state,  and  to  convert  it  by  impress- 
ment into  a  standing  army. 

"  It  may  be  here  remarked,  as  a  circumstance  illustrative 
of  the  determination  of  the  Executive  to  establish  an  ab- 
solute control  over  all  descriptions  of  citizens,  that  the 
right  of  impressing  seamen  into  the  naval  service  is  ex- 
pressly asserted  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  in  a  late 
report.  Thus  a  practice,  which  in  a  foreign  government 
has  been  regarded  with  great  abhorrence  by  the  people, 
finds  advocates  among  those  who  have  been  the  loudest  to 
condemn  it. 

"  The  law  authorising  the  enlistment  of  minors  and  ap- 
prentices into  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  without  the 
consent  of  parents  and  guardians,  is  also  repugnant  to  the 
spirit  of  the  constitution.  By  a  construction  of  the  power 
to  raise  armies,  as  applied  by  our  present  rulers,  not  only 


360  HISTORY   OF   THE 

persons  capable  of  contracting  are  liable  to  be  impressed 
into  the  army,  but  those  who  are  under  legal  disabilities 
to  make  contracts,  are  to  be  invested  with  the  capacity,  in 
order  to  enable  them  to  annul  at  pleasure  contracts  made 
in  their  behalf  by  legal  guardians.  Such  an  interference 
with  the  municipal  laws  and  rights  of  the  several  states, 
could  never  have  been  contemplated  by  the  framer^  of  the 
constitution.  It  impairs  the  salutary  control  and  influence 
of  the  parent  over  his  child — the  master  over  his  servant 
— the  guardian  over  his  ward — and  thus  destroys  the  most 
important  relations  in  society,  so  that  by  the  conscription 
of  the  father,  and  the  seduction  of  the  son,  the  power  of 
the  Executive  over  all  the  effective  male  population  of  the 
United  States  is  made  complete. 

*'  Such  are  some  of  the  odious  features  of  the  novel  sys- 
tem proposed  by  the  rulers  of  a  free  country,  under  the 
limited  powers  derived  from  the  constitution.  What  por- 
tion of  them  will  be  embraced  in  acts  finally  to  be  passed, 
it  is  yet  impossible  to  determine.  It  is,  however,  suffi- 
ciently alarming  to  perceive,  that  these  projects  emanate 
from  the  highest  authority,  nor  should  it  be  forgotten,  that 
by  the  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  classification  of 
the  militia  embraced  the  principle  of  direct  taxation  upon 
the  white  population  only  ;  and  that,  in  the  house  of  re- 
presentatives, a  motion  to  apportion  the  militia  among  the 
white  population  exclusively,  which  would  have  been  in  its 
operation  a  direct  tax,  was  strenuously  urged  and  sup- 
ported. 

"  In  this  whole  series  of  devices  and  measures  for  rais- 
ing men,  this  convention  discern  a  total  disregard  for  the 
constitution,  and  a  disposition  to  violate  its  provisions,  de- 
manding from  the  individual  states  a  firm  and  decided 
opposition.  An  iron  despotism  can  impose  no  harder  ser- 
vitude upon  the  citizen,  than  to  force  him  from  his  home 
and  his  occupation,  to  wage  oflfensive  wars,  undertaken  to 
gratify  the  pride  or  passions  of  his  master.    The  example 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  361 

of  France  has  recently  shown  that  a  cabal  of  individuals 
assuming  to  act  in  the  name  of  the  people,  may  transform- 
the  great  body  of  citizens  into  soldiers,  and  deliver  them 
over  into  the  hands  of  a  single  tyrant.  No  war,  not  held 
in  just  abhorrence  by  the  people,  can  require  the  aid  of 
such  stratagems  to  recruit  an  army.  Had  the  troops 
already  raised,  and  in  great  numbers  sacrificed  upon  the 
frontier  of  Canada,  been  employed  for  the  defence  of  the 
country,  and  had  the  millions  which  have  been  squandered 
with  shameless  profusion,  been  appropriated  to  their  pay- 
ment, to  the  protection  of  the  coast,  and  to  the  naval  ser- 
vice, there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  unconstitu- 
tional expedients.  Even  at  this  late  hour,  let  government 
leave  to  New-England  the  remnant  of  her  resources,  and 
she  is  ready  and  able  to  defend  her  territory,  and  to  resign 
the  glories  and  advantages  of  the  border  war  to  those 
who  are  determined  to  persist  in  its  prosecution. 

"  That  acts  of  Congress  in  violation  of  the  constitution 
are  absolutely  void,  is  an  undeniable  position.  It  does 
not,  however,  consist  with  respect  and  forbearance  due 
from  a  confederate  state  towards  the  general  government, 
to  fly  to  open  resistance  upon  every  infraction  of  the  con- 
stitution. The  mode  and  the  energy  of  the  opposition, 
should  always  conform  to  the  nature  of  the  violation,  the 
intention  of  its  authors,  the  extent  of  the  injury  inflicted, 
the  determination  manifested  to  persist  in  it,  and  the  dan- 
ger of  delay.  But  in  cases  of  deliberate,  dangerous,  and 
palpable  infractions  of  the  constitution,  affecting  the  sove- 
reignty of  a  state,  and  liberties  of  the  people  ;  it  is  not 
•only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  such  a  state  to  interpose  its 
authority  for  their  protection,  in  the  manner  best  calcu- 
lated to  secure  that  end.  When  emergencies  occur  which 
are  either  beyond  the  reach  of  the  judicial  tribunals,  or 
too  pressing  to  admit  of  the  delay  incident  to  their  forms, 
states  which  have  no  common  umpire,  must  be  their  own 
judges,  and  execute  their  own  decisions.     It  will  thus  be 

46 


362  HISTORY    OF    THE 

proper  for  the  several  states  to  await  the  ultimate  disposal 
of  the  ohhoxious  measures  recommended  by  the  Secreta- 
ry of  War,  or  pending  before  Congress,  and  so  to  use  their 
power  according  to  the  character  these  measures  shall 
finally  assume,  as  effectually  to  protect  their  own  sove- 
reignty, and  the  rights  and  liberties  of  their  citizens. 

"  The  next  subject  which  has  occu|)ied  the  attention  of 
the  convention,  is  the  means  of  defence  against  the  com- 
mon enemy.  This' naturally  leads  to  the  inquiries,  whe- 
ther any  expectation  can  be  reasonably  entertained,  that 
adequate  provision  for  the  defence  of  the  eastern  states 
will  be  made  by  the  national  government?  Whether  the 
several  states  can,  from  their  own  resources,  provide  for 
self-defence  and  fulfd  the  requisitions  which  are  to  be  ex- 
pected for  the  national  treasury  ?  and,  generally,  what 
course  of  conduct  ought  to  be  adopted  by  those  states,  in 
relation  to  the  great  object  of  defence. 

"  Without  pausing  at  present  to  comment  upon  the 
causes  of  the  war,  it  may  be  assumed  as  a  truth,  officially 
announced,  that  to  achieve  the  conquest  of  Canadian  ter- 
ritory, and  to  hold  it  as  a  pledge  for  peace,  is  the  delibe- 
rate purpose  of  administration.  This  enterprize,  com- 
menced at  a  period  when  government  possessed  the  ad- 
vantage of  selecting  the  time  and  occasion  for  making  a 
sudden  descent  upon  an  unprepared  enemy,  now  languishes 
in  the  third  year  of  the  war.  It  has  been  prosecuted  with 
various  fortune,  and  occasional  brilliancy  of  exploit,  but 
without  any  solid  acquisition.  The  British  armies  have 
been  recruited  by  veteran  regiments.  Their  navy  com- 
mands Ontario.  The  American  ranks  are  thinned  by  the 
casualties  of  war.  Recruits  are  discouraged  by  the  unpo- 
pular character  of  the  contest,  and  by  the  uncertainty  of 
receiving  their  pay. 

"  In  the  prosecution  of  this  favourite  warfare,  admi- 
nistration have  left  the  exposed  and  vulnerable  parts  of 
the  country  destitute  of  all  the  efficient  means  of  defence^ 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  363 

The  main  body  of  the  regular  army  has  been  marched  to 
the  frontier.  The  navy  has  been  stripped  of  a  great  part 
of  its  sailors  for  the  service  of  the  lakes.  Meanwhile  the 
enemy  scours  the  sea-coast,  blockades  our  ports,  ascends 
our  bays  and  rivers,  makes  actual  descents  in  various  and 
distant  places,  holds  some  by  force,  and  threatens  all  that 
are  assailable  with  fire  and  sword.  The  sea-board  of 
four  of  the  New-England  states,  following  its  curvatures, 
presents  an  extent  of  more  than  seven  hundred  miles, 
generally  occupied  by  a  compact  population,  and  accessi- 
ble by  a  naval  force,  exposing  a  mass  of  people  and  pro- 
perty to  the  devastation  of  the  enemy,  which  bears  a  great 
proportion  to  the  residue  of  the  maritime  frontier  of  the 
United  States.  This  extensive  shore  has  been  exposed 
to  frequent  attacks,  repeated  contributions,  and  constant 
alarms.  The  regular  forces  detached  Gy  the  national 
government  for  its  defence  are  mere  pretexts  for  placing 
officers  of  high  rank  in  command.  They  arc  besides  con- 
fined to  a  few  places,  and  are  too  insignificant  in  number 
to  be  included  in  any  computation. 

*' These  states  have  thus  been  left  to  adopt  measures  for 
th^ir  own  defence.  The  militia  have  been  constantly  kept 
on  the  alert,  and  harassed  by  garrison  duties,  and  other 
hardships,  while  the  expenses,  of  which  the  national  go- 
vernment decline  the  reimbursement,  threaten  to  absorb 
all  the  resources  of  the  states.  The  President  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  has  refused  to  consider  the  expense  of  the  mili- 
tia detached  by  state  authority,  for  the  indispensable  de- 
fence of  the  state,  as  chargeable  to  the  Union,  on  the 
ground  of  a  refusal  by  the  Executive  of  the  state  to  place 
them  under  the  command  of  officers  of  the  regular  aVmy. 
Detachments  of  militia  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  gene- 
ral government,  have  been  dismissed  either  without  pay, 
or  with  depreciated  paper.  The  prospect  of  the  ensuing 
campaign  is  not  enlivened  by  the  promise  of  any  allevia- 
tion of  these  grievances.      From  authentic  documents, 


364  HISTORY    OF    THE 

extorted  by  necessity  from  those  whose  inclination  might 
lead  them  to  conceal  the  embarrassments  of  the  govern- 
ment, it  is  apparent  that  the  treasury  is  bankrupt,  and  its 
credit  prostrate.  So  deplorable  is  the  state  of  the  finan- 
ces, that  those  who  feel  for  the  honour  and  safety  of  the 
country,  would  be  willing  to  conceial  the  melancholy  spec- 
tacle, if  those  whose  infatuation  has  produced  this  state 
of  fiscal  concerns  had  not  found  themselves  compelled  to 
unveil  it  to  public  view. 

*'If  the  war  be  continued,  there  appears  no  room  for 
reliance  upon  the  national  government  for  the  supply  of 
those  means  of  defence  which  must  become  indispensable 
to  secure  these  states  from  desolation  and  ruin.  Nor  is  it 
possible  that  the  states  can  discharge  this  sacred  duty  from 
their  own  resources,  and  continue  to  sustain  the  burden 
of  the  national  taxes.  The  administration,  after  a  long 
perseverance  in  plans  to  baffle  every  effort  of  commercial 
enterprize,  had  fatally  succeeded  in  their  attempts  at  the 
epoch  of  the  war.  Commerce,  the  vital  spring  of  New- 
England's  prosperity,  was  annihilated.  Embargoes,  re- 
strictions, and  the  rapacity  of  revenue  officers,  had  com- 
pleted its  destruction.  The  various  objects  for  the  employ- 
ment of  productive  labour,  in  the  branches  of  business 
dependent  on  commerce,  have  disappeared.  The  fisheries 
have  shared  its  fate.  Manufactures,  which  government 
has  professed  an  intention  to  favour  and  to  cherish,  as  an 
indemnity  for  the  failure  of  these  branches  of  business, 
are  doomed  to  struggle  in  their  infancy  with  taxes  and  ob- 
structions, which  cannot  fail  most  seriously  to  affect  their 
growth.  The  specie  is  withdrawn  from  circulation.  The 
landed  interest,  the  last  to  feel  these  burdens,  must  pre- 
pare to  become  their  principal  support,  as  all  other  sources 
of  revenue  must  be  exhausted.  Under  these  circumstan- 
ces, taxes,  of  a  description  and  amount  unprecedented  in 
this  country,  are  in  a  train  of  imposition,  the  burden  of 
which  must  fall  with  the  heaviest  pressure  upon  the  states 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  365 

east  of  the  Potomac.  The  amount  of  these  taxes  for  the 
ensuing  year  cannot  he  estimated  at  less  than  five  millions  of 
dollars  upon  the  New-England  states^  and  the  expenses  of  the 
last  year  for  defence,  in  Massachusetts  alone,  approaches  to 
one  million  of  dollars, 

"  From  these  facts,  it  is  almost  superfluous  to  state  the 
irresistible  inference  that  these  states  have  no  capacity  of 
defraying  the  expense  requisite  for  their  own  protection, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  of  discharging  the  demands  of  the 
national  treasury. 

"  The  last  inquiry,  what  course  of  conduct  ought  to  be 
adopted  by  the  aggrieved  states,  is  in  a  high  degree  mo- 
mentous. When  a  great  and  brave  people  shall  feel  them- 
selves deserted  by  their  government,  and  reduced  to  the 
necessity  either  of  submission  to  a  foreign  enemy,  or  of 
appropriating  to  their  own  use  those  means  of  defence 
which  are  indispensable  to  self-preservation,  they  cannot 
consent  to  wait  passive  spectators  of  approaching  ruin, 
which  it  is  in  their  power  to  avert,  and  to  resign  the  last 
remnant  of  their  industrious  earnings  to  be  dissipated  in 
support  of  measures  destructive  of  the  best  interests  of 
the  nation. 

"This  convention  will  not  trust  themselves  to  express 
their  conviction  of  the  catastrophe  to  which  such  a  state 
of  things  inevitably  tends.  Conscious  of  their  high  respon- 
sibility to  God  and  their  country,  solicitous  for  the  continu- 
ance of  the  Union,  as  well  as  the  sovereignty  of  the  states, 
unwilling  to  furnish  obstacles  to  peace — resolute  never  to 
submit  to  a  foreign  enemy,  and  confiding  in  the  Divine 
care  and  protection,  they  will,  until  the  last  hope  shall  be 
extinguished,  endeavor  to  avert  such  consequences. 

"  With  this  view  they  suggest  an  arrangement,  which 
may  at  once  be  consistent  with  the  honour  and  interest  of 
the  national  government,  and  the  security  of  these  states. 
This  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  conclude,  if  that  government 
should   be  so  disposed,     ^y  the  terms  of  it  these  states 


866  HISTORY    OF   THE 

might  be  allowed  to  assume  their  own  defence,  by  the  mi- 
litia or  other  troops.  A  reasonable  portion,  also,  of  the 
taxes  raised  in  each  state  mi<rht  be  paid  into  its  treasury, 
and  credited  to  the  United  States,  but  to  be  appropriated 
to  the  defence  of  such  state,  to  be  accounted  for  with  the 
United  States.  No  doubt  is  entertained  that  by  such  an 
arrangement,  this  portion  of  the  country  could  be  defend- 
ed with  greater  effect,  and  in  a  mode  more  consistent  with 
economy,  and  the  public  convenience,  than  any  which  has 
been  practised. 

**  Should  an  application  for  these  purposes,  made  to  Con- 
gress by  the  state  legislatures,  be  attended  with  success, 
and  should  peace  upon  just  terms  appear  to  be  unattaina- 
ble, the  people  would  stand  together  for  the  common  de- 
fence, until  a  change  of  administration,  or  of  disposition  in 
the  enemy,  should  facilitate  the  occurrence  of  that  auspi- 
cious event.  It  would  be  inexpedient  for  this  Convention 
to  diminish  the  hoj)e  of  a  successful  issue  to  such  an  appli- 
cation, by  recommending,  upon  supposition  of  a  contrary 
event,  ulterior  proceedings.  Nor  is  it  indeed  within  their 
province.  In  a  state  of  things  so  solemn  and  trying  as 
may  then  arise,  the  legislatures  of  the  states,  or  conven- 
tions of  the  whole  people,  or  delegates  appointed  by  them 
for  the.  express  purpose  in  another  Convention,  must  act 
as  such  urgent  circumstances  may  then  require. 

'*  But  the  duty  incumbent  on  this  Convention  will  not 
have  been  performed,  without  exhibiting  some  general 
view  of  such  measures  as  they  deem  essential  to  secure 
the  nation  against  a  relapse  into  difficulties  and  dangers, 
should  they,  by  the  blessing  of  Providence,  escape  from 
their  present  condition,  without  absolute  ruin.  To  thisr 
end  a  concise  retrospect  of  the  state  of  this  nation  under 
the  advantages  of  a  wise  administration,  contrasted  with 
the  miserable  abyss  into  which  it  is  plunged  by  the  profli- 
gacy and  folly  of  political  theorists,  will  lead  to  some  [)rac- 
tical  conclusions.     On  this  subject,  it  will  be  recollected, 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  867 

that  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
upon  its  first  adoption,  and  for  twelve  succeeding  years, 
upon  the  pro?perity  and  happiness  of  the  nation,  seemed 
to  countenance  a  belief  in  the  transcendency  of  its  perfec- 
tion over  all  other  human  institutions.     In  the  catalogue 
of  blessings  which  have  fallen  to  the  lot  of  the  most  favour- 
ed nations,   none  could   be  enumerated   from  which  our 
country  was  excluded^-a  free  Constitution,  administered 
by  great  and  incorruptible  statesmen,  realized  the  fondest 
hopes  of  liberty  and  independence — The  progress  of  agri- 
culture was   stimulated   by  the  certainty  of  value  in  the 
harvest — and   commerce,  after  traversing  every  sea,  re- 
lumed with  the  riches  of  every  clime.     A  revenue,  secur- 
ed by  a  sense  of  honour,  collected  without  oppression,  and 
paid  without  murmurs,  melted  away  the  national  debt; 
and  the  chief  concern  of  the  public  creditor  arose  from  its 
too  rapid  diminution.     The  wars  and  commotions  of  the 
European  nations,  and  their  interruptions  of  the  commer- 
cial intercourse  afforded  to  those  who  had  not  promoted, 
but  who  would  have  rejoiced  to  alleviate  their  calamities, 
a  fair  and  golden  opportunity,  by  combining  themselves  to 
lay  a  broad  foundation  for  national  wealth.    Although  oc- 
casional vexations  to  commerce  arose  from  the  furious  col- 
lisions of  the  powers  at  war,  yet  the  great  and  good  men 
of4hat  time  conformed  to  the  force  of  circumstances  which 
they  could  not  control,  and  preserved  their  country  in  se- 
curity from    the   tempests   which   overwhelmed    the  old 
world,   and  threw  the  wreck  of  their  fortunes  on  these 
shores.     Respect  abroad,  prosperity  at  home,  wise  laws 
made  by  honoured  legislators,  and  prompt  obedience  yield- 
ed by  a  contented  people,  had  silenced  the  enemies  of  re- 
publican institutions.     The  arts  flourished — the  sciences 
were  cultivated — the   comforts  and   conveniences  of   life 
were  universally  diflTused — and  nothing  remained  for  suc- 
ceeding administrations  but  to  reap  the  advantages  and 


3G8  HISTORY    OF   THE 

cherish  the  resources  flowing  from  the  pohcy  of  their 
predecessors. 

"  But  110  sooner  was  a  new  administration  established 
in  the  hands  of  the  party  opposed  to  the  Washington  po- 
licy, than  a  fixed  determination  was  perceived  and  avowed 
of  changing  a  system  which  had  already  produced  these 
substantial  fruits.  The  consequences  of  this  change,  for 
a  few  years  after  its  commencement,  were  not  sufficient  to 
counteract  the  prodigious  impulse  towards  prosperity, 
which  had  been  given  to  the  nation.  But  a  steady  perse- 
verance in  the  new  plans  of  administration,  at  length  de- 
veloped their  weakness  and  deformity,  but  not  until  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people  had  been  deceived  by  flattery,  anci  in- 
flamed by  passion,  into  blindness  to  their  defects.  Under 
the  withering  influence  of  this  new  system,  the  declension 
of  the  nation  has  been  uniform  and  rapid.  The  richest 
advantages  for  securing  the  great  objects  of  the  constitu- 
tion have  been  wantonly  rejected.  While  Europe  reposes 
from  the  convulsions  that  had  shaken  down  her  ancient 
institutions,  she  beholds  with  amazement  this  remote 
country,  once  so  happy  and  so  envied,  involved  in  a  ruin- 
ous war,  and  excluded  from  intercourse  with  the  rest  of 
the  world. 

"  To  investigate  and  explain  the  means  whereby  this 
fatal  reverse  has  been  effected,  would  require  a  voluminous 
discussion.  Nothing  more  can  be  attempted  in  this  report 
than  a  general  allusion  to  the  principal  outlines  of  the 
policy  which  has  produced  this  vicissitude.  Among  these 
may  be  enumerated — 

"  First. — A  deliberate  and  extensive  system  for  effect- 
ing a  combination  among  certain  states,  by  exciting  local 
jealousies  and  ambition,  so  as  to  secure  to  popular  leaders 
in  one  section  of  the  Union,  the  controul  of  public  affairs 
in  perpetual  succession.  To  which  primary  object  most 
other  characteristics  of  the  system  may  be  reconciled. 

**  Secondly, — The   pohtical   intolerance  displayed    and 


j^iA"      ^^,r^  HARTFORD    COxWENTIOxV.  369 

avowed  in  excluding  from  office  men  of  unexceptionable 
merit,  for  want  of  adherence  to  the  executive  creed. 

"  Thirdly, — The  infraction  of  the  judiciary  authority 
and  rights,  by  depriving  judges  of  their  offices  in  violation 
ofthe  constitution. 

"  Fourthly, — The  abolition  of  existing  taxes,  requisite 
to  prepare  the  country  for  those  changes  to  which  nations 
are  always  exposed,  with  a  view  to  the  acquisition  of  po- 
pular favour. 

*'  Fifthly. — The  influence  of  patronage  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  offices,  which  in  these  states  has  been  almost  inva- 
riably made  among  men  the  least  entitled  to  such  distinc- 
tion, and  who  have  sold  themselves  as  ready  instruments 
for  distracting  public  opinion,  and  encouraging  adminis- 
tration to  hold  in  contempt  the  wishes  and  remonstrances 
of  a  people  thus  apparently  divided. 

*'  Sixthly. — The  admission  of  new  states  into  the  Union 
formed  at  pleasure  in  the  western  region,  has  destroyed 
the  balance  of  power  which  existed  among  the  original 
States,  and  deeply  affected  their  interest. 

"  Seventhly. — The  easy  admission  of  naturalized  fo- 
reigners, to  places  of  trust,  honour  or  profit,  operating  as 
an  inducement  to  the  malcontent  subjects  ofthe  old  world 
to  come  to  these  States,  in  quest  f)f  executive  patronage, 
and  to  repay  it  by  an  abject  devotion  to  executive  mea- 
sures. 

"  Eighthly. — Hostility  to  Great  Britain,  and  partiality 
to  the  late  government  of  France,  adopted  as  coincident 
with  popular  prejudice,  and  subservient  to  the  main  ob- 
ject, party  power.  Connected  with  these  must  be  ranked 
erroneous  and  distorted  estimates  of  the  power  and  resour- 
ces of  those  nations,  of  the  probable  results  of  their  contro- 
versies, and  of  our  political  relations  to  them  respectively. 

*'  Lastly  and  principally. — A  visionary  and  superficial 
theory  in  regard  to  commerce,  accompanied  by  a  real 
hatred  but  a  feigned  regard  to  its  interests,  and  a  ruinous 

47 


370  HISTORY    OF   THE 

perseverance  in  efforts  to  render  it  an  instrument  of  coer- 
cion and  war. 

"  But  it  is  not  conceivable  that  the  obliquity  of  any  ad- 
ministration could,  in  so  short  a  period,  have  so  nearly 
consummated  the  work  of  national  ruin,  unless  favoured 
by  defects  in  the  constitution. 

"To  enumerate  all  the  improvements  of  which  that  in- 
strument is  susceptible,  and  ta  propose  such  amendments 
as  might  render  it  in  all  respects  perfect,  would  be  a  task 
which  this  convention  has  not  thought  proper  to  assume. 
They  have  confined  their  attention  to  such  as  experience 
has  demonstrated  to  be  essential,  and  even  among  these^ 
some  are  considered  entitled  to  a  more  serious  attention 
than  others.  They  are  suggested  without  any  intentional 
disrespect  to  other  states,  and  are  meant  to  be  such  as  all 
shall  find  an  interest  in  promoting.  Their  object  is  ta 
strengthen,  and  if  possible  to  perpetuate,  the  union  of  the 
states,  by  removing  the  grounds  of  existing  jealousies,  and 
providing  for  a  fair  and  equal  representation,  and  a  limita- 
tion of  powers,  which  have  been  misused. 

"  The  first  amendment  proposed,  relates  to  the  appor- 
tionment of  representatives  among  the  slave  holding 
states.  This  cannot  be*claimed  as  a  right.  Those  states 
are  entitled  to  the  slave  representation,  by  a  constitu- 
tional compact.  It  is  therefore  merely  a  subject  of  agree- 
ment, which  should  be  conducted  upon  principles  of  mu- 
tual interest  and  accommodation,  and  upon  which  no  sen- 
sibility on  either  side  should  be  permitted  to  exist.  It  has 
proved  unjust  and  unequal  in  its  operation..  Had  thi» 
eft'ect  been  foreseen,  the  privilege  would  probably  not  have 
been  demanded;  certainly  not  conceded.  Its  tendency  in 
future  will  be  adverse  to  that  harmony  and  mutual  confi- 
dence which  are  more  conducive  to  -the  happiness  and 
prosperity  of  every  confederated  state,  than  a  mere  pre- 
ponderance of  power,  the  prolific  source  of  jealousies  and 
controversy,  can  be  to  any  one  of  them..     The  time  may 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  371 

therefore  arrive,  when  a  sense  of  magnanimity  and  justice 
will  reconcile  those  states  to  acquiesce  in  a  revision  of  this 
article,  especially  as  a  fair  equivalent  would  result  to  them 
in  the  apportionment  of  taxes. 

"The  next  amendment  relates  to  the  admission  of  new 
states  into  the  Union. 
')  "  This  amendment  is  deemed  to  be  highly  important, 
^nd  in  fact  indispensable.  In  proposing  it,  it  is  not  intend- 
ed to  recognize  the  right  of  Congress  to  admit  new  states 
without  the  original  limits  of  the  United  States,  nor  is  any 
idea  entertained  of  disturbing  the  tranquillity  of  any  state 
already  admitted  into  the  Union.  The  object  is  merely  to 
♦restrain  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  in  admitting  ^ 
new  states.  At  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  a  certain 
balance  of  power  among  the  original  parties  was  consid- 
ered to  exist,  and  there  was  at  that  time,  and  yet  is  among 
those  parties,  a  strong  affinity  between  their  great  and 
general  interests. — By  the  admission  of  these  states  that 
balance  has  been  materially  affected,  and  unless  the  prac- 
tice be  modified,  must^  ultimately  be  destroyed.  The 
southern  states  will  first  avail  themselves  of  their  new 
<jonfederates  to  govern  the  east,  and  finally  the  western 
states/multiplied  in  number,  and  augmented  in  population, 
will  control  the  interests  of  the  whole.  Thus  for  the  sake 
of  present  power,  the  southern  states  will  be  common  suf- 
ferers with  the  east,  in  the  loss  of  permanent  advantages. 
None  of  the  old  states  can  find  an  interest  in  creating  pre- 
maturely, an  overwhelming  western  influence,  which  may 
hereafter  discern  (as  it  has  heretofore)  benefits  to  be  de- 
rived to  them  by  wars  and  commercial  restrictions. 

"The  next  amendments  proposed  by  the  convention, 
relate  to  the  powers  of  Congress,  in  relation  to  embargo 
and  the  interdiction  of  commerce. 
^  *'  Whatever  theories  upon  the.  subject  of  commerce 
have  hitherto  divided  the  opinions  of  statesmen,  experience 
has  at  last  shown  that  it  is  a  vital  interest  in  the  United 


372  HISTORY    OF   THE 

States,  and  that  its  success  is  essential  to  the  encourage- 
ment of  agriculture  and  manufactures,  and  to  the  wealth, 
finances,  defence,  and  liberty  of  the  nation.  Its  welfare 
can  never  interfere  with  the  other  great  interests  of  the 
state,  but  must  promote  and  uphold  them.  Still  those 
who  are  immediately  concerned  in  the  prosecution  of  com- 
merce, will  of  necessity  be  always  a  minority  of  the  na- 
tion. They  arc,  however,  best  qualified  to  manage  and 
direct  its  course  by  the  advantages  of  experience,  and  the 
sense  of  interest.  But  they  are  entirely  unable  to  protect 
themselves  against  the  sudden  and  injudicious  decisions  of 
bare  majorities,  and  the  mistaken  or  oppressive  projects  of 
those  who  are  not  actively  concerned  in  its  pursuits.  Of 
consequence,  this  interest  is  always  exposed  to  be  harassed, 
interrupted,  and  entirely  destroyed,  upon  pretence  of  se- 
curing other  interests.  Had  the  merchants  of  this  nation 
been  permitted  by  their  own  government  to  pursue  an  in- 
nocent and  lawfiil  commerce,  how  different  would  have 
been  the  state  of  the  treasury  and  of  public  credit!  How 
short -sighted  and  miserable  is  the  policy  which  has  anni- 
hilated this  order  of  men,  and  doomed  their  shi[j3  to  rot 
in  the  docks,  their  capital  to  waste  unemployed,  and  their 
affections  to  be  alienated  from  the  government  which  was 
formed  to  protect  them  !  What  security  for  an  ample  and 
unfailing  revenue  can  ever  be  had,  comparable  to  that 
which  once  was  realized  in  the  good  faith,  punctuality, 
and  sense  of  honour,  which  attached  the  mercantile  class 
to  the  interests  of  the  government !  Without  commerce, 
where  can  be  found  the  aliment  for  a  navy;  and  without 
a  navy,  what  is  to  constitute  the  defence,  and  ornament, 
and  glory  of  this  nation  !  No  union  can  be  durably  ce- 
mented, in  which  every  great  interest  does  not  find  itself 
reasonably  secured  against  the  encroachment  and  combi- 
nations of  other  interests.  When,  therefore,  the  past  sys- 
tem of  embargoes  and  commercial  restrictions  shall  have 
been  reviewed^ — when  the  fluctuation  and  inconsistencv  of 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  W7B 

public  measures,  betraying  a  want  of  information  as  well 
as  feeling  in  the  majority,  shall  have  been  considered,  the 
reasonableness  of  some  restrictions  upon  the  power  of  a 
bare  majority  to  repeat  these  oppressions,  will  appear  to  be 
obvious. 

V^  "The  next  amendment  proposes  to  restrict  the  power 
of  making  offensive  war.  In  the  consideration  of  this 
amendment,  it  is  not  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  justice 
of  the  present  war.  But  one  sentiment  now  exists  in  re- 
lation to  its  expediency,  and  regret  for  its  declaration  is 
nearly  universal.  No  indemnity  can  ever  be  attained  for 
this  terrible  calamity,  and  its  only  palliation  must  be  found 
in  obstacles  to  its  future  recurrence.  Rarely  can  the  state 
of  this  country  call  for  or  justify  offensive  war.  The  ge- 
nius of  our  institutions  is  unfavourable  to  its  successful 
prosecution ;  the  felicity  of  our  situation  exempts  us  from 
its  necessity.  In  this  case,  as  in  the  former,  those  more 
immediately  exposed  to  its  fatal  effects  are  a  minority  of 
the  nation.  The  commercial  towns,  the  shores  of  our 
seas  and  rivers,  contain  the  population  whose  vital  inte- 
rests are  most  vulnerable  by  a  foreign  enemy.  Agriculture, 
indeed,  must  feel  at  last,  but  tlxis  appeal  to  its  sensibility 
comes  too  late.  Again,  the  immense  population  which 
has  swarmed  into  the  west,  remote  from  immediate  dan- 
ger, and  which  is  constantly  augmenting,  will  not  be  averse 
from  the  occasional  disturbances  of  the  Atlantic  states. 
Thus  interest  may  not  unfrequently  combine  with  passion 
and  intrigue,  to  plunge  the  nation  into  needless  wars,  and 
compel  it  to  become  a  military,  rather  than  a  happy  and 
flourishing  people.  These  considerations,  whkh  it  would 
be  easy  to  augment,  call  loudly  for  the  limitation  proposed 
in  the  amendment. 

"  Another  amendment,  subordinate  in  importance,  but 
still  in  a  high  degree  expedient,  relates  to  the  exclusion 
of  foreigners  hereafter  arriving  in  the  United  States  from 
the  capacity  of  holding  offices  of  trust,  honour,  or  profit. 


374  HISTORY   OF   THE 

*'  That  the  stock  of  population  already  in  these  states 
is  amply  sufficient  to  render  this  nation  in  due  time  suffi- 
ciently great  and  powerful,  is  not  a  controvertible  question. 
Nor  will  it  be  seriously  pretended,  that  the  national  defi- 
ciency in  wisdom,  arts,  science,  arms,  or  virtue,  needs  to 
be  replenished  from  foreign  countries.  Still,  it  is  agreed, 
that  a  liberal  policy  should  offer  the  rights  of  hospitality, 
and  the  choice  of  settlement,  to  those  who  are  disposed  to 
visit  the  country.  But  why  admit  to  a  participation  in  the 
government  aliens  who  were  no  parties  to  the  compact — 
who  are  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  our  institutions,  and 
have  no  stake  in  the  welfare  of  the  country  but  what  is 
recent  and  transitory  ?  It  is  surely  a  privilege  sufficient, 
to  admit  them  after  due  probation  to  become  citizens,  for 
all  but  political  purposes.  To  extend  it  beyond  these  limits, 
is  to  encourage  foreigners  to  come  to  these  states  as  candi- 
dates for  preferment.  The  Convention  forbear  to  express 
their  opinion  upon  the  inauspicious  effects  which  have  al- 
ready resulted  to  the  honour  and  peace  of  this  nation, 
froni  this  misplaced  and  indiscriminate  liberality. 

"The  last  amendment  respects  the  limitation  of  the  of- 
fice of  President  to  a  single  constitutional  term,  and  his 
eligibility  from  the  same  state  two  terms  in  succession. 

"  Upon  this  topic  it  is  superfluous  to  dilate.  The  love  of 
power  is  a  principle  in  the  human  heart  which  too  often 
impels  to  the  use  of  all  practicable  means  to  prolong  its 
duration.  The  office  of  President  has  charms  and  attrac- 
tions which  operate  as  powerful  incentives  to  this  passion. 
The  first  and  most  natural  exertion  of  a  vast  patronage  is 
directed  towards  the  security  of  a  new  election.  The  in- 
terest of  the  country,  the  welfare  of  the  people,  even  ho- 
nest fame  and  respect  for  the  opinion  of  posterity,  are 
secondary  considerations.  All  the  engines  of  intrigue,  all 
the  means  of  corruption  are  likely  to  be  employed  for  this 
object.  A  President  whose  political  career  is  limited  to  a 
single  election,  may  find  no  other  interest  than  will  be  pro- 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  375 

moted  by  making  it  glorious  to  himself,  and  beneficial  to 
his  country.  But  the  hope  of  re-election  is  prolific  of 
temptations,  under  which  these  magnanimous  motives  are 
deprived  of  their  principal  force.  The  repeated  election 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  from  any  one  state, 
affords  inducements  and  means  for  intrigues,  which  tend 
to  create  an  undue  local  influence,  and  to  establish  the 
domination  of  particular  states.  The  justice,  therefore,  of 
securing  to  every  state  a  fair  and  equal  chance  for  the 
election  of  this  officer  from  its  own  citizens  is  apparent, 
and  this  object  will  be  essentially  promoted  by  preventing 
an  election  from  the  same  state  twice  in  succession. 

*'  Such  is  the  general  view  which  this  Convention  has 
thought  proper  to  submit,  of  the  situation  of  these  states, 
of  their  dangers  and  their  duties.  Most  of  the  subjects 
which  it  embraces  have  separately  received  an  ample  and 
luminous  investigation,  by  the  great  and  able  assertors  of 
the  rights  of  their  country,  in  the  national  legislature;  and 
nothing  more  could  be  attempted  on  this  occasion  than  a 
digest  of  general  principles,  and  of  recommendations  suit- 
ed to  the  present  state  of  public  aflfairs.  The  peculiar  dif- 
ficulty and  delicacy  of  performing  even  this  undertaking, 
will  be  appreciated  by  all  who  think  seriously  upon  the 
crisis.  Negotiations  for  peace  are  at  this  hour  supposed 
to  be  pending,  the  issue  of  which  must  be  deeply  interest- 
ing to  all.  No  measures  should  bo  adopted  which  might 
unfavourably  aflfect  that  issue  ;  none  which  should  embar- 
rass the  administration,  if  their  professed  desire  for  peace 
is  sincere  ;  and  none  which  on  supposition  of  their  insince- 
rity, should  afford  them  pretexts  for  prolonging  the  war, 
or  relieving  themselves  from  the  responsibility  of  a  disho- 
nourable peace.  It  is  also  devoutly  to  be  wished,  that  an 
occasion  may  be  affbrded  to  all  .friends  of  the  country,  of 
all  parties,  and  in  all  places,  to  pause  and  consider  the 
awful  state  to  which  pernicious  counsels  and  blind  passions 
have  brought  this  people.    The  number  of  those  who  per- 


376  HISTORY    OF   THE 

ceive,  and  who  are  ready  to  retrace  errors,  must,  it  is  be- 
lieved, be  yet  sufficient  to  redeem  the  nation.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  rally  and  unite  them  by  the  assurance  that  no  hos- 
tility to  the  constitution  is  meditated,  and  to  obtain  their 
aid  in  placing  it  under  guardians  who  alone  can  save  it 
from  destruction.  Should  this  fortunate  change  be  effect- 
ed, the  hope  of  happiness  and  honour  may  once  more  dis- 
pel the  surrounding  gloom.  Our  nation  may  yet  be  great, 
our  union  durable.  But  should  this  prospect  be  utterly 
hopeless,  the  time  will  not  have  been  lost  which  shall  have 
ripened  a  general  sentiment  of  the  necessity  of  more 
mighty  efforts  to  rescue  from  ruin,  at  least  some  portion 
of  our  beloved  country. 

"  Therefore  RESOLVED, 

"  That  it  be  and  hereby  is  recommended  to  the  legis- 
latures of  the  several  states  represented  in  this  Conven- 
tion, to  adopt  all  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  ef- 
fectually to  protect  the  citizens  of  said  states  from  the 
operation  and  effects  of  all  acts  which  have  been  or  may 
be  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  which 
shall  contain  provisions,  subjecting  the  militia  or  other 
citizens  to  forcible  drafts,  conscriptions,  or  impressments, 
not  authorised  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

"  Resolved,  That  it  be  and  hereby  is  recommended  to 
the  said  Legislatures,  to  authorize  an  immediate  and 
earnest  application  to  be  made  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  requesting  their  consent  to  some  arrange- 
ment, whereby  the  said  states  may,  separately  or  in  con- 
cert, be  empowered  to  assume  upon  themselves  the  de- 
fence of  their  territory  against  the  enemy ;  and  a  reason- 
able portion  of  the  taxes,  collected  within  said  States,  may 
be  paid  into  the  respective  treasuries  thereof,  and  appro- 
priated to  the  payment  of  the  balance  due  said  states,  and 
to  the  future  defence  of  the  same.  The  amount  so  paid 
into  the  said  treasuries  to  be  credited,  and  the  disburse- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  37t 

ments  made  as  aforesaid  to  be  charged   to  the   United 
States. 

^^  Resolved,  That  it  be,  and  hereby  is,  recommended  to 
the  legislatures  of  the  aforesaid  states,  to  pass  laws  (where 
it  has  not  already  been  done)  authorizing  the  governors  or 
commanders-in-chief  of  their  militia  to  make  detachments 
from  the  same,  or  to  form  voluntary  corps,  as  shall  be  most 
convenient  and  conformable  to  their  constitutions,  and  to 
cause  the  same  to  be  well  armed,  equipped,  and  disciplined, 
and  held  in  readiness  for  service ;  and  upon  the  request  of 
the  governor  of  either  of  the  other  states  to  employ  the 
whole  of  such  detachment  or  corps,  as  well  as  the  regular 
forces  of  the  state,  or  such  part  thereof  as  may  be  required 
and  can  be  spared  consistently  with  the  safety  of  the  state, 
in  assisting  the  state,  making  such  request  to  repel  any  in- 
vasion thereof  which  shall  be  made  or  attempted  "by  the 
public  enemy. 

^^  Resolved,  That  the  following  amendments  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  be  recommended  to  the 
states  represented  as  aforesaid,  to  be  proposed  by  them 
for  adoption  by  the  state  legislatures,  and  in  such  cases  as 
may  be  deemed  expedient  by  a  convention  chosen  by  the 
people  of  each  state. 

"  And  it  is  further  recommended,  that  the  said  states 
shall  persevere  in  their  efforts  to  obtain  such  amendments, 
until  the  same  shall  be  effected. 

*'  First.  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  ap- 
portioned among  the  several  states  which  may  be  included 
within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers 
of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  serve  for  a  term 
of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  and  all  other 
persons. 

**  Second,  No  new  state  shall  be  admitted  into  the 
Union  by  Congress,  in  virtue  of  the  power  granted  by  the 
constitution,  without  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  both 
houses. 

48 


378  HISTORY    OF    THE 

"  Third.  Congress  shall  not  have  power  to  lay  any 
embargo  on  the  ships  or  vessels  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  ports  or  harbours  thereof,  for  more 
than  sixty  days. 

"  Fourth.  Congress  shall  not  have  power,  without  the 
concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  both  houses,  to  interdict  the 
commercial  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and 
any  foreign  nation,  or  the  dependencies  thereof. 

"  Fifth.  Congress  shall  not  make  or  declare  war,  or 
authorize  acts  of  hostility  against  any  foreign  nation,  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  both  houses,  except 
such  acts  of  hostility  be  in  defence  of  the  territories  of  the 
United  States  when  actually  invaded. 

"  Sixth,  No  person  who  shall  hereafter  be  naturalized, 
shall  be  eligible  as  a  member  of  the  senate  or  house  of 
representatives  of  the  United  States,  nor  capable  of  hold- 
ing any  civil  office  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States. 

"  Seventh.  The  same  person  shall  not  be  elected  pre- 
sident of  the  United  States  a  second  time  5  nor  shall  the 
president  be  elected  from  the  same  state  two  terms  in  suc- 
cession. 

"  Resolved,  That  if  the  application  of  these  states  to  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  recommended  in  afore- 
going resolution,  should  be  unsuccessful,  and  peace  should 
not  be  concluded,  and  the  defence  of  these  states  should 
be  neglected,  as  it  has  been  since  the  commencement  of 
the  war,  it  will,  in  the  opinion  of  this  convention,  be  expe- 
dient for  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states  to  appoint 
delegates  to  another  convention,  to  meet  at  Boston  in  the 
state  of  Massachusetts,  on  the  third  Thursday  of  June 
next,  with  such  powers  and  instructions  as  the  exigency  of 
a  crisis  so  momentous  may  require. 

''Resolved,  That  the  Hon.  George  Cabot,  the  Hon. 
Chauncey  Goodrich,  and  the  Hon.  Daniel  Lyman,  or  any 
two  of  them,  be  authorized  to  call  another  meeting  of  this 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION. 


379 


^^ 


convention,  to  be  holden  in  Boston,  at  any  time  before 
n€w  delegates  shall  be  chosen,  as  recommended  in  the 
above  resolution,  if  in  their  judgment  the  situation  of  the 
country  shall  urgently  require  it. 

George  Cabot,  '    \  ^^ 
Nathan  Dane, 
William  Prescott, 
Harrison  Gray  Otis, 
^  Timothy  Bigelow, 
Joshua  Thomas, 
Samuel  SuxMner  Wilde, 
Joseph  Lyman, 
Stephen  Longfellow,  Jun. 
Daniel  Waldo, 
HoDiJAH  Baylies, 
George  Bliss. 


Massachusetts, 


Chauncey  Goodrich, 
John  Treadwell, 
James  Hillhouse, 
Zephaniah  Swift, 
Nathaniel  Smith, 
Calvin  Goddard, 
Roger  Minot  Sherman. 


Connecticut. 


Daniel  Lyman, 
Samuel  Ward, 
Edward  Manton, 
Benjamin  Hazard, 


Rhode-Island, 


Benjamin  West, 
Mills  Olcott. 

William  Hall,  Jun. 


>  N.  Hampshire, 


VermonV^ 

-  • 


This  document  was  immediately  published,  and  exten- 
sively circulated  through  the  country.  It  was  looked  for 
with  much  anxiety,  and  of  course  was  read  with  great  avidi- 


380  HISTORY   OF   THE 

ty.  The  expectations  of  those  who  apprehended  it  would 
contain  sentiments  of  a  seditious,  if  not  of  a  treasonable 
character,  were  entirely  disappointed.  They  looked  in 
vain  for  either  the  one  or  the  other,  and  were  obliged  to 
acknowledge  that  no  such  sentiments  were  to  be  found  in 
it.  Equally  free  was  it  from  advancing  doctrines  which 
had  a  tendency  to  destroy  the  union  of  the  states.  On 
the  contrary,  it  breathed  an  ardent  attachment  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  republic.  Its  temper  was  mild,  its  tone 
moderate,  and  its  sentiments  w^ere  liberal  and  p^riotic. 
Many  leading  members  of  the  party  who  had  always  ad- 
hered to  the  administration  and  supported  the  war,  did 
not  hesitate  to  declare  that  it  was  an  able  and  unexception- 
able document  ;  and  politicians  of  every  party,  and  of  all 
descriptions,  agreed  that  it  displayed  great  ability,  and  con- 
tained principles  and  sentiments  of  much  importance  to 
the  welfare  of  the  nation. 

In  a  very  short  time  after  the  publication  of  the  report, 
the  country  was  surprised  with  the  news  of  peace.  The 
manner  in  which  the  intelligence  of  this  event  was  re- 
ceived throughout  the  country,  afforded  a  striking  com- 
mentary upon  the  character  of  the  war,  and  the  light  in 
which  it  was  viewed  by  the  nation  at  large.  Without  wait- 
ing to  learn  what  were  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  or  tb 
ascertain  whether  the  objects  for  which  the  war  was  pro- 
fessedly declared  had  been  accomplished,  a  general  spirit, 
not  merely  of  rejoicing,  but  of  exultation,  broke  out  in 
every  part  of  the  country.  Mutual  congratulations  at  the 
restoration  of  peace  were  exchanged  by  all  descriptions  of 
politicians,  bonfires  were  kindled,  and  illuminations  were 
exhibited  over  a  large  portion  of  the  Union.  Nobody 
seemed  to  manifest  any  anxiety  about  the  provisions  of  the 
treaty — thfeXvar  was  at  an  end,  and  peace  was  established  ; 
and  beyond  those  main  points,  scarcely  any  individual  ap- 
peared to  be  disposed  to  inquire  or  examine. 

AJmost  at  the  same  moment  of  time  when  the  neivs  of 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  381 

peace  reached  the  seat  of  government,  intelligence  was 
received  of  the  repulse  of  the  British  forces  at  New^-Or- 
leans.     Although  this  event  occurred  some  time  after  the 
treaty  of  peace  was  signed,  and  the  war  was  ended,  yet 
its  brilliancy  was  considered  as  a  proof  of  merit  in  the 
administration  in  the  manner  of  conducting  the  war.    The 
flush  of  feeling  which  this  victory  occasioned,  drew  the 
ppblic  attention  away  from  the  treaty  of  peace,  and  the 
vast  expense  of  treasure  and  blood  which  the  war  had 
given  rise  to ;  and  the  administration  and  their  devoted 
friends,  with  their  usual  skill,  turned  it  to  their  own  ac- 
count.    As  a  never-failing  source  of  profit  to  the  leaders 
of  the  party  in  power,  the  public  resentment  was  excited 
against  the  opposersof  the  war,  and  particularly  against  the 
New-England  states,  and  the  Hartford  Convention  became 
the  theme  of  universal  calumny  and  reproach.    The  report, 
dignified,  able,  and  unobjectionable  as  it  was  so  generally 
acknowledged  to  be,  had  no  efficacy  in  shielding  the  states 
from  the  most  opprobrious  charges,  and  the  Convention 
from  the  foulest  reproaches.     Not  being  able  to  find  any 
thing  to  justify  this  virulence  in  the  report,  it  was  alleged 
with  as  much  apparent  confidence  as  if  it  had  been  known 
to  be  a  matter  of  fact,  that  although  the  report  itself  con- 
tained no  evidence  of  treason,  or  even  of  sedition,  yet  the 
history  of  their  secret  proceedings,  whenever  they  should 
be  made  public,  would  disclose  an  abundance  of  proof  of 
the  existence  of  both.     When  the  Convention  adjourned 
on  the  5th  of  January,  1815,  it  was  supposed  that  it  might 
be  necessary  for  them  to  hold  a  second  meeting.     With 
that  expectation,  when  they  adjourned,  they  did  not  think 
it  expedient  to  remove  the  injunction  of  secrecy  under 
which  the  members  had  been  laid  at  the  commencement 
of  the  session  ;  and  the  journal  was  sealed,  and  placed  for 
safe  keeping  in  the  hands  of  the  President.     When  it  was 
found  that  it  was  not  likely  to  be  published,  the  charge  of 
meditated  sedition  and  treason  was  repeated  in  every  quar- 


882  HISTORY   OF   THE 

ter,  certain  specific  measures  partaking  of  such  a  charac- 
ter were  boldly  asserted  to  have  been  brought  before  the 
Convention,  and  urged  upon  the  members  for  their  adop- 
tion.    And  to  give  plausibility  to  their  declarations,  some 
of  the    stories    went    so  far  as  to  state  the  manner    in 
which  the  mischievous  propositions  were  rejected,  and  to 
name  the  individual  member  or  members  by  whose  exer- 
tions  and   influence  the  intended   object    was    defeated. 
Notwithstanding  the  impossibility  that  facts  of  this  kind 
could  be  disclosed,  except  by  some  of  the  members,  or  by 
the  secretary,  as  no  others  were  ever  present  at  any  of  the 
proceedings,  the  tale,  in  spite  of  its  absurdity,  appeared  to 
gain  credit  abroad  in  the  community,  and  added  one  more 
item  to  the  long  catalogue  of  falsehoods  and  slanders  that 
were  circulated  about  the  proceedings  and  character  of  the 
Convention.     At  length  it  was  thought  expedient  to  place 
the  journal  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts, for  the  inspection  of  all  persons  who  might  feel 
curiosity  enough  to  examine  it.     It  was  afterwards  pub- 
lished in  pamphlets,   and  in  newspapers  ;   but  it  did  not 
stop  the  clamours  of  those  who  were  unwilling  to  lose  so 
powerful  an  engine  of  partizan  warfare  as  this  had  long 
been.     Like  the  name  of  "  Federalist,"  it  answered  the 
most  valuable  purpose  among  demagogues,  and  unprinci- 
pled politicians  ;  it  was  used  with  great  eff'ect ;   the  weak, 
the  designing,  and  the  wicked,  still  made  use  of  the  Hart- 
ford Convention  as  a  countersign  of  party,  and  as  a  watch- 
word  to   rally  the  ignorant   and  the  vicious  around  the 
standard  of  the  ambitious;  and  even  now,  there  is  an  ap- 
parent uneasiness  among  that  description  of  people,  at  the 
idea  that  they  may  be  obliged  to  give  up  this  their  favourite 
topic  of  reproach  upon  their  political  opponents. 
The  following  is  a  copy  of  that  document. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  383 


l§ecret  Journal  of  the  Hartford  Convention. 

"  Hartford,  Thursday,  Dec.  15,  1814. 

"This  being  the  day  appointed  for  the  meeting  of  the 
Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  New-England  states, 
assembled  for  the  purpose  of  conferring  on  such  subjects 
as  may  come  before  them,  the  following  persons,  from 
those  states,  met  in  the  council  chamber  of  the  state  house, 
in  Hartford,  in  the  state  of  Connecticut,  viz. — 

"  From  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  Messrs.  George  Cabot, 
William  Prescott,  Harrison  Gray  Otis,  Timothy  Bigelow, 
Nathan  Dane,  George  Bliss,  Joshua  Thomas,  Hodijah 
Baylies,  Daniel  Waldo,  Joseph  Lyman,  Samuel  S.  Wilde, 
and  Stephen  Longfellow,  Jun. 

*'  From  the  state  of  Rhode-Island,  Messrs.  Daniel  Lyman, 
Benjamin  Hazard,?  and  Edward  Manton. 

"  From  the  state  of  Connecticut,  Messrs.  Chauncey  Good- 
rich, James  Hillhouse,  John  Treadwell,  Zephaniah  Swift, 
Nathaniel  Smith,  Calvin  Goddar^  and  Roger  M.  Sher- 
man. 

'*  From  the  state  of  Neiv-Hampshire,  Messrs.  Benjamin 
West^  and  Mills  Olcott. 

"  Upon  being  called  to  order  by  Mr.  Cabot,  the  persons 
present  proceeded  to  choose,  by  ballot,  a  President — 
Messrs.  Bigelow  and  Goodrich  were  appointed  to  receive 
and  count  the  votes  given  in  for  that  purpose,  who  report- 
ed that  Mr.  George  Cabot,  a  member  from  Massachusetts, 
was  unanimously  chosen. 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  the  Convention  proceed  to  the 
choice  of  a  person  to  be  their  Secretary,  who  is  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Convention  ;  and  the  votes  having  been  received 
and  counted,  Theodore  Dwight,  of  Hartford,  was  declared 
to  be  chosen  unanimously. 

*'  Messrs.  Otis,  Hillhouse,  and  Lyman,  were  appointed 
a  committee  to  examine  the  credentials  of  the  members 


384  HISTORY   OF   THE  ' 

returned  to  serve  ill  the  convention,  and  report  the  names 
of  such  as  they  should  find  duly  qualified  ;  who,  having 
attended  to  the  subject  of  their  said  appointment,  made 
the  following  report : — 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  examine  the  credentials 
of  the  members  returned  to  serve  in  the  convention  now 
assembled  at  Hartford,  have  attended  to  that  service,  and 
find  the  following  persons  to  have  been  elected  members 
thereof  by  the  respective  legislatures  of  the  following 
states ; — From  Massachusetts,  George  Cabot,  William 
Prescott,  Harrison  Gray  Otis,  Timothy  Bigelow,  Stephen 
Longfellow,  Jun.  Daniel  Waldo,  George  Bliss,  Nathan 
Dane,  Hodijah Baylies,  JoshuaThoma§,  Joseph  Lyman,  and 
Samuel  S.  Wilde.  From  Rhode-Island,  Daniel  Lyman, 
Samuel  Ward,  Benjamin  Hazard,  and  Edward  Manton. 
From  Connecticut,  Chauncey  Goodrich,  James  Hillhouse, 
John  Treadwell,  Zephaniah  Swift,  Calvin  Goddard,  Na- 
thaniel Smith,  and  Roger  Minot  Sherman. 

"  The  committee  also  report,  that  at  a  conventional 
meeting  of  twenty  town*  in  the  county  of  Cheshire,  in  the 
state  of  New-Hampshire,  Hon.  Benjamin  West  was  elect- 
ed to  meet  in  this  convention  ;  and  at  a  conventional  meet- 
ing of  delegates  from  most  of  the  towns  in  the  county  of 
Grafton,  and  from  the  town  of  Lancaster,  in  the  county  of 
Coos,  Mills  Olcott,  Esq.  was  elected  to  meet  in  this  con- 
vention ;  and  the  committee  are  of  opinion,  that  the  above 
named  persons  are  entitled  to  take  their  seats  as  members 
of  this  convention. 

*'  On  motion,  voted,  that  said  report  be  accepted  and 
approved. 

"  On  motion  of  Mr.  Otis,  voted,  that  the  convention  be 
opened  with  prayer,  and  that  the  delegates  from  the  state 
of  Connecticut  be  requested  to  invite  a  clergyman  belong 
ing  to  the  town  of  Hartford  to  perform  that  service. 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  Messrs.  Goddard,  Bigelow,  and 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  385 

Lyman,  be  a  committee  to  prepare  rules  of  proceeding  for 
this  Convention.  > 

"  The  Convention  was  opened  with  prayer  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Strong,  of  Hartford. 

**  On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned 
to  3  o'clock,  P.  M.  of  this  day,  then  to  me*et  at  this  place. 

"  Thursday,  Bee.  15,  3  o'clock,  P.  M, 
*'  The  Convention  met  agreeably  to  adjournment. 
"  The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  rules  of  proceed- 
ing, proper  to  beob'served  by  this  Convention,  &c,  made  the 
following  report. 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  prepaVe  rules  and  orders, 
proper  to  be  observed  by  this  Convention,  during  its  con- 
tinuance, ask  leave  to  report  the  following;  which  are 
respectively  submitted. 

"Calvin  Goddard,  j^er  Order. 

"1.  The  meetings  of  this  Convention  shall  be  opened 
each  morning,  by  prayer,  which  it  is  requested  may  be 
performed,  alternately,  by  the  chaplains  of  the  legislature 
of  Connecticut,  residing  in  the  city  of  Hartford. 

*'  2.  The  most  inviolable  secrecy  shall  be  observed  by 
each  member  of  this  Convention,  including  the  Secretary, 
as  to  all  propositions,  debates,  and  proceedings  thereof, 
until  this  injunction  shall  be  suspended  or  altered. 

"  3.  The  secretary  of  this  Convention  is  authorized  to 
employ  some  suitable  person  to  serve  as  a  door-keeper 
and  messenger,  together  with  a  suitable  assistant,  ifne-' 
cessary,  neither  of  whom  are,  at  any  time,  to  be  made 
acquainted  with  any  of  the  debates  or  proceedings  of  the 
board. 

"  4.  That  the  president  of  this  Convention  be  authorized 
to  regulate  and  direct  the  debates  and  proceedings  thereof, 
in  such  manner  as  may  seem  to  him  discreet  and  proper, 
and  to  name  all  their  committees. 

49 


38G  HISTORY   OF   THE 

*'  On  motion,  voted,  that  said  report  be  accepted  and 
approved. 

"On  motion,  voted,  that  a  committee  of  five  be  ap- 
pointed to  inquire  what  sul)jects  will  be  proper  to  be  con- 
sidered by  this  Convention,  and  report  such  propositions 
for  that  purpose,  as  they  may  think  expedient,  to  the  Con- 
vention, to-morrow  morning. 

'*  The  following  persons  were  appointed  on  that  com- 
mittee:  Messrs.  Goodrich,  Otis,  Lyman,  of  Rhode  Island, 
Swifr,  and  Dane. 

**  On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  to 
10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning ;  then  to  meet  at  this  place^ 

"  Friday,  December  16,  1814. 

"  The  Convention  met,  agreeably  to  adjournment. 

"  The  Convention  was  opened  with  prayer  by  the  Rev.. 
Dr.  Strong. 

**  Mr.  Ward,  a  member  from  the  State  of  Rhode  Island^ 
attended,  and  took  his  seat  in  the  Convention. 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  inquire  what  subjects 
will  be  proper  to  be  considered  by  the  convention,  and  ta 
report  such  propositions  for  that  purpose,  as  they  may 
think  expedient,  respectfully  report : 

'' '  That  your  committee  deem  the  following  to  be  pro- 
per subjects  for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention  : — 
The  powers  claimed  by  the  executive  of  the  United  States, 
to  determine,  conclusively,  in  respect  to  calling  out  the 
militia  of  the  states  into  the  service  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  the  dividing  the  United  States  into  military  districts, 
with  an  officer  of  the  army  in  each  thereof,  with  discre- 
tionary authority  from  the  executive  of  the  United  States, 
to  call  for  the  militia  to  be  under  the  command  of  such 
officer.  The  refusal  of  the  executive  of  the  United  States 
to  supply,  or  pay  the  militia  of  certain  states,  called  out 
for  their  defence,  on  the  grounds  of  their  not  having  been 
called  out  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  or  not 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  387 

having  been,  by  the  executive  pf  the  state,  put  under  the 
command  of  the  commander  over  the  military  district.  The 
failure  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  supply 
and  pay  the  militia  of  the  states,  by  them  admitted  to  have 
been  in  the  United  States'  service.  The  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  to  Congress,  on  filling  the  ranks  of  the 
army,  together  with  a  bill,  or  act,  on  that  subject.  A  bill 
before  Congress,  providing  for  classing  and  drafting  the 
militia.  Tlie  expenditure  of  the  revenue  of  the  nation  in 
offensive  operations  on  the  neighbouring  provinces  of  the 
enemy.  The  failure  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States  to  provide  for  the  common  defence ;  and  the  con- 
sequent obligations,  necessity  and  burdens,  devolved  on 
the  separate  states,  to  defend  themselves;  together  with 
the  mode,  and  the  ways  and  means,  in  their  power  for 
accomplishing  the  object.' 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  said  report  be  accepted  and 
approved.  On  motion,  voted,  that  a  committee  of  three 
be  appointed  to  obtain  such  documents  and  information 
as  may  be  necessary  for  the  use  and  consideration  of  the 
Convention,  and  may  be  connected  with  their  proceedings. 
Mr.  Hillhouse,  Mr.  Bliss,  and  Mr.  Hazard,  were  appoint- 
ed on  that  committee.  On  motion,  voted,  that  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Perkins  be  invited  to  attend  in  turn  with  the  other 
gentlemen  already  invited,  as  chaplains.  On  motion, 
voted,  that  the  injunction  of  secrecy,  as  to  the  proceedings 
of  yesterday,  be  removed.  On  motion,  voted,  that  the 
convention  be  adjourned  to  3  o'clock,  P.  M."^of  this  day, 
then  to  meet  in  this  place. 

**  Three  o'clock^  P.  M. — The  Convention  met  agreeably 
to  adjournment.  After  spending  the  afternoon  in  various 
discussions  of  important  subjects,  on  motion,  voted,  that 
this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  to-morrow,  10  o'clock, 
A.  M.  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 


388  HISTORY    OF   THE 

''Saturday,  December  M, 1^1^. 

''  The  Convention  met,  agreeably  to  adjournment. 

*'  The  Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Strong.  After  spending  the  forenoon  in  discussing 
the  first  section  of  the  report  of  the  committee  made  on 
Friday,  on  motion,  voted,  that  when  this  Convention  ad- 
journ, it  be  adjourned  till  Monday  next.  On  motion, 
voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  Monday  next, 
at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

*'  Monday,  December  19,  1814. 

"  The  Convention  met,  agreeably  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Chase. 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  a  committee  of  five  be  appoint- 
ed to  prepare  and  report  a  general  project  of  such  mea- 
sures as  it  may  be  proper  for  this  Convention  to  adopt. 

*'  Messrs.  Smith,  Otis,  Goddard,  West,  and  Hazard, 
were  appointed  to  be  of  that  committee. 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned 
till  3  o'clock  this  afternoon,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o^clocJ{,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met  agreeably 
to  adjournment.  On  motion,  voted,  that  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Cushman  be  invited  to  attend  in  turn  with  the  other  gen- 
tlemen already  invited,  as  chaplains. 

"  After  spending  the  afternoon  in  discussing  the  report, 
the  committee,  on  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be 
adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning,  10  o'clock,  then  to  be 
held  at  this  place. 

"  Tuesday,  December  20,  1814. 

"  The  Convention  met,  agreeably  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Strong.  The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  and  report 
a  general  project  of  such  measures  as  it  may  be  proper 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  389 

for  this  Convention  to  adopt,  made  a  report,  which  was 
laid  in  and  read.  After  discussing  several  articles  of  the 
said  report,  the  further  consideration  of  it  was  postponed 
until  the  afternoon.  On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Conven- 
tion be  adjourned  till  3  o'clock  this  afternoon,  then  to 
meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o'clock,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met,  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  The  Convention  resumed  the  considera- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  was  postponed 
in  the  forenoon ;  and  after  discussion  through  the  after- 
noon, the  same  was  postponed  until  the  morning.  On 
motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  until  to- 
morrow morning,  10  o'clock,  A.  M.  then  to  meet  at  this 
place. 

^    •  "  Wednesday,  December  21, 1814. 

"  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Chase.  The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  postponed  yesterday.  After  spending  the  time  of  the 
forenoon  in  the  discussion  of  the  report  of  the  committee, 
the  further  consideration  was  postponed  to  the  afternoon. 
On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  to  3 
o'clock  this  afternoon,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o^ clock,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met,  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  The  Convention  resumed  the  considera- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  was  postponed 
in  the  forenoon.  On  motion,  voted  that  a  committee  of 
seven  be  raised  to  prepare  a  report  illustrative  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  reasons  which  have  induced"^the  Convention  to 
adopt  the  results  to  which  they  have  a"eed.  Mr.  Otis, 
Mr.  Smith,  Mr.  Sherman,  Mr.  Dane,  Mr.  Prescott,  Mr. 
West,  and  Mr.  Hazard,  were  appointed  on  that  committee. 
On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  til 
to-morrow  morning,  10  o'clock. 


890  HISTORY   OF   THE 

"  Thursday,  December  22,  1814. 

'*  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Kev.  Dr.  Per- 
kins. The  Conventicn  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  committee,  postponed  last  evening.  After 
spending  the  forenoon  in  discussing  said  report,  the  fur- 
ther consideration  was  postponed  till  this  afternoon.  On 
motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  3 
o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o'clock,  P.  iV/.— The  Convention  met  agreeably 
to  adjournment.  The  Convention  resumed  the  considera- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  was  postponed 
in  the  forenoon.  After  spending  the  afternoon  in  discuss- 
ing said  report,  the  further  consideration  thereof  was  post- 
poned. On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  ad- 
journed till  to-morrow  morning,  10  o'clock,  then  to  meet 
at  this  place. 

"  Friday,  December  23,  1814. 

*'  The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Chase.  The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  committee,  which  was  postponed  yesterday. 
After  spending  the  forenoon  in  discussing  the  report  of  the 
committee,  the  further  consideration  thereof  was  postponed 
until  to-morrow.  On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention 
be  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning,  10  o'clock,  then  to 
meet  at  this  place. 
• 

"  Saturday,  December  24,  1814. 

"  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Kev.  Dr.  Per- 
kins. The  president  communicated  an  address  from  a 
number  of  citizens  belonging  to  the  county  of  Washing- 
ton, in  the  state  of  New- York,  which  was  read.     On  mo- 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  391 

tion,  voted,  that  the  said  address  be  referred  to  the  com-  ' 
mittec  appointed  on  the  21st  inst. 

*'  The  Convention  resumed  tlie  consideration  of  the  re- 
port of  the  committee,  which  was  postponed  yesterday. 
On  motion,  voted,  that  another  member  be  added  to  the 
committee  appointed  on  the  21st  inst.  3Ir.  Sherman  be- 
ing necessarily  absent.  Mr.  Swift  was  appointed  on  said 
committee. 

*'  The  report  of  the  committee  which  was  laid  in  on  the 
20th  instant,  having  been  under  discussion  at  the  several 
meetings  of  the  Convention,  and  having  been  amended, 
was  adopted,  and  referred  to  the  committee  appointed  on 
the  21st  to  report ;  which  report  is  as  follows,  viz. 

''  The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  and  report  a  ge- 
neral project  of  such  measures  as  it  may  be  proper  for  this 
Convention  to  adopt,  respectfully  report : 

*'  1.  That  it  will  be  expedient  for  this  convention  to 
prepare  a  general  statement  of  the  unconstitutional  at- 
tempts of  the  executive  government  of  the  United  States 
to  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  the  individual  states,  in  re- 
gard to  the  militia,  and  of  the  still  more  alarming  claims 
to  infringe  the  rights  of  the  states,  manifested  in  the  letter 
of  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  in  the  bills  pending  before 
Congress,  or  acts  passed  by.  them,  and  also  to  recommend 
to  the  legislatures  of  the  states,  the  adoption  of  the  most 
effectual  and  decisive  measures,  to  protect  the  militia  and 
the  states  from  the  usurpations  contained  in  these  pro- 
ceedings. 

*'  2.  That  it  will  be  expedient,  also,  to  prepare  a  state- 
ment, exhibiting  the  necessity  which  th^mprovidence  and 
inability  of  the  general  government  have  imposed  upon 
the  several  states,  of  providing  for  their  own  defence,  and 
the  impossibility  of  their  discharging  this  duty,  and  at  the 
same  time  fulfilling  the  requisitions  of  the  general  govern- 
ment; and  also,  to  recommend  to  the  legislatures  of  the 
several  states,  to  make  provision  for  mutual  defence,  and 


392  HISTORY    OF   THE 

to  make  an  earnest  application  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  with  a  view  to  some  arrangement,  whereby 
the  states  may  be  enabled  to  retain  a  portion  of  the  taxes 
levied  by  Congress,  for  the  purposes  of  self-defence,  and 
for  the  reimbursement  of  expenses  already  incurred,  on 
account  of  the  United  States. 

"  3.  That  it  is  expedient  to  recommend  to  the  several 
state  legislatures,  certain  amendments  to  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  hereafter  enumerated,  to  be  by  them 
adopted  and  proposed.  (The  remainder  of  this  article  in 
the  report  was  postponed.) 

*' 1.  That  the  power  to  declare  or  make  war,  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  be  restricted. 

"  2.  That  it  is  expedient  to  attempt  to  make  provision 
for  restraining  Congress  in  the  exercise  of  an  unlimited 
power,  to  make  new  states,  and  admit  them  into  this 
Union. 

"  3.  That  the  powers  of  Congress  be  restrained  in  lay- 
ing embargoes,  and  restrictions  on  commerce. 

"  4.  That  a  president  shall  not  be  elected  from  the  same 
state  two  terms  successively. 

"  5.  That  the  same  person  shall  not  be  elected  president 
a  second  time. 

"6.  That  an  amendment  be  proposed,  respecting  slave 
representation,  and  slave  taxation. 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned 
to  Monday  afternoon,  three  o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this 
place. 

"  Monday^  December  26,  1814. 

**  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Woodbridge,  of  Hadley,  Massachusetts.  The  committee 
not  being  prepared  to  lay  in  their  report,  on  motion,  voted, 
that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning, 
ten  o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 


HARTFORD    COJXVENTION.  393 


"  Tuesday,  December  27, 1814. 

<'The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Per- 
kins. The  committee  not  being  prepared  to  lay  in  their 
report,  on  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned 
till  this  afternoon,  three  o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

**  T/iree  o'clock,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  The  committee  not  being  prepared  to 
lay  in  their  report,  on  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention 
be  adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning,  ten  o'clock,  then  to 
meet  at  this  place. 

"  Wednesday,  December  28,  1814. 

"  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Chase.  A  certificate  of  the  proceedings  of  a  Convention 
in  the  county  of  Windham,  in  the  state  of  Vermont,  ap- 
pointing the  Hon.  William  Hall,  Jun.  to  represent  the  people 
of  that  county  in  this  Convention,  was  read.  On  motion, 
voted,  that  the  Hon.  William  Hall,  Jun.  is  entitled  to  a  seat 
in  this  Convention;  and  that  the  Hon.  Mr.  Olcott,  of  New- 
Hampshire,  be  requested  to  introduce  Mr.  Hall,  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  his  seat. 

*'  Mr.  Hall,  a  member  from  the  county  of  Windham, 
in  the  state  of  Vermont,  attended,  and  took  his  seat  in 
the  Convention.  The  report  of  the  committee  not  being 
prepared,  on  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  ad- 
journed to  three  o'clock,  this  afternoon ;  then  to  meet  at 
this  place. 

"  Three  o^clock,  P.  31. — The  Convention  met  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  The  report  of  the  committee  not  being 
prepared,  upon  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  ad- 
journed till  to-morrow  morning,  ten  o'clock. 

50 


394  HISTORY   OF   THE  ^ 

"  Thursday,  December  29,  1814. 

"  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Dr, 
Stpong.  On  motion,  voted,  that  the  following  proj)osition 
be  referred  to  the  committee  appointed  on  the  21st  instant.. 

"'Tliat  the  capacity  of  naturalized  citizens  to  hold  offi- 
ces of  trust,  honour,  or  profit,  ou^ht  to  be  restrained;  and 
that  it  is  expedient  to  propose  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  in  relation  to  that  subject.' 

"  The  report  of  the  committee  not  being  prepared,  on 
motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  three 
o'clock  this  afternoon,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o'clock,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met,  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  The  report  of  the  committee  not  being 
prepared,  on  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  ad- 
journed till  to-morrow  morning,  ten  o'clock,  then  to  meet 
at  this  place. 

''Friday,  December  30,  1814. 

**The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  llev.  Dr.  Per- 
kins. The  committee  appointed  on  the  21st  instant  pre 
sented  their  report,  which  was  read  twice.  The  forenoon 
having  been  spent  in  reading  the  r(?port,  on  motion,  voted,, 
that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  three  o'clock  this 
afternoon,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o'clock,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met,  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  After  spending  the  afternoon  in  discuss^ 
ing  the  report,  the  subject  was  postponed.  On  motion, 
voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  to-morrow 
morning,  ten  o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

''Saturday,  December Zl,  1814.. 

"The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention   was  opened   with   prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Mr, 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  395 

Chase.  The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  report,  postponed  yesterday.  On  motion,  voted,  that 
a  committee,  to  consist  of  three,  be  appointed  to  procure 
that  part  of  the  report  which  relates  to  the  mihtia,  printed 
confidentially.  Messrs.  Goodrich,  Lyman,  of  Massachu- 
setts, and  Goddard,  were  appointed  on  that  committee. 
After  having  spent  the  forenoon  in  considering  the  report, 
the  further  consideration  thereof  was  postponed.  On  mo- 
tion, voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  half  past 
two  o'clock  this  afternoon,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

*'  Three  o'clock,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met,  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  The  Convention  resumed  the  considera- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  Committee,  which  was  postponed 
in  the  forenoon.  After  having'  spent  the  afternoon  in  dis- 
cussing the  report  of  the  committee,  the  further  conside- 
ration thereof  was  postponed.  On  motion,  voted,  that  a 
ccfhimittee  of  three  persons  be  appointed  to  ascertain  what 
expenses  have  been  incurred  in  this  Convention,  which  it 
is  necessary  for  them  to  defray,  and  to  report  the  mode  of 
discharging  them.  Mr.  Goddard,  Mr.  Prescott,  and  Mr. 
Ward,  were  appointed  on  that  committee.  On  motion, 
voted,  that  the  first  eight  pages  of  the  report  be  recom- 
mitted to  the  committee  which  reported  it,  to  reconsider 
the  same.  On  motion,  voted,  that  the  same  committee  re- 
port such  documents  and  articles  as  they  may  think  proper, 
to  compose  an  appendix  to  the  report. 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned 
till  Monday  morning,  ten  o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Monday,  January  2,  1815. 

'*  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  R<;v.  Mr. 
Chase.  The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  committee  which  was  postponed  from  Satur- 
day. After  spending  the  forenoon  in  discussing  the  report, 
the   further  consideration  thereof  .was  postponed.      On 


3S6  HISTORY    OF   THE 

motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  half 
past  two  o'clock  this  aftenioon,  then  to  meet  at  this  place* 
"  Half  past  two  d' clocks  P.  M. — The  Convention  met,  pur- 
suant to  adjournment.  The  Convention  resumed  the  con- 
sideration of  the  report  of  the  committee  which  was  post- 
poned in  the  forenoon.  After  spendin<j  the  afternoon  in 
discussing  the  report  of  the  committee,  the  further  con- 
sideration thereof  w^as  postponed.  On  motion,  voted,  that 
this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning,  nine 
o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Tuesdaij,  January  3,  1815. 

*'  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Per- 
kins. The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  committee  which  was  postponed  yesterday. 
After  spending  the  forenoon  in  discussing  the  report  of  the 
committee,  the  same  was  postponed  till  the  afternoon.  On 
motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till  three 
o'clock  this  afternoon,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o'clock^  P.  M. — The  Conversion  met,  pursuant 
to  adjournment.     The  Convention  resumed  the  considera- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  was  postponed 
in  the  forenoon.    After  discussing  and  amending  the  report 
of  the  committee,  voted,  that  the  same  be  accepted  and 
approved.     On   motion,  resolved,  that  the  injunction  of 
secrecy,  in  regard  to  all  the  debates  and  proceedings  of 
this  Convention,  except  in  so  far  as  relates  to  the  report 
finally  adopted,  be,  and  hereby  is,  continued.     On  motion, 
voted,  that  a  committee  of  three  persons  be  appointed  to 
consider  and  report  what  measures  it  will  be  expedient  to 
recommend  to  the  states,  for  their  mutual  defence.     Mr. 
Prescott,  Mr.  Wilde,  and  Mr.  Manton,  were  appointed  on 
the  committee. 

**0n  motion,  voted,  that  Mr.  Sherman  be  added  to  the 
committee  for  superintending  the  printing  of  the  report. 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  397 

On  motion,  voted,  that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  till 
to-morrow  morning,  ten  o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Wednesday,  January  4,  1815. 

"  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The 
Convention  was  opened  with  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Chase.  On  motion,  voted,  that  certain  documents  before 
the  Convention,  be  published,  with  the  following  title, 
'  Statemcnls  prepared  and  published^  by  order  of  the  Conven- 
Hon  of  delegates,  held  at  Hartford,  Dec,  15,  1814,  and 
printed  by  their  order. "* 

"  On  motion,  voted,  that  Mr.  Goodrich  be  discharged 
from  any  further  services  on  the  committee  to  superintend 
the  printing  of  the  report,  &c.  On  motion,  voted,  that 
another  member  be  added  to  that  committee.  Mr.  Otis 
was  appointed  to  that  place.  The  committee  appointed 
to  report  what  measures  it  will  be  expedient  to  recommend 
to  the  states,  for  their  mutual  defence,  presented  a  report, 
which  was  read.  On  motion,  voted,  that  the  said  report 
be  accepted  and  approved.  On  motion,  voted,  that  this 
Convention  be  adjourned  till  three  o'clock  this  afternoon, 
then  t<5  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Three  o'clock,  P.  M. — The  Convention  met,  pursuant 
to  adjournment  On  motion,  voted,  that  two  copies  of  the 
report  of  ^the  Convention'  subscribed  by  all  the  members 
who  shall  be  disposed  to  sign  the  same,  be  forwarded  to 
each  of  the  governors  of  the  states  of  Massachusetts, 
Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New-Hampshire,  and  Ver- 
mont ;  one  of  which  to  be  for  the  private  use  of  the  said 
governors,  and  with  a  request  that  the  other,  at  some  pro- 
per time,  may  be  laid  before  the  legislatures  of  the  states 
aforesaid. 

'*  Mr.  Goodrich  submitted  the  following  resolution  to  the 
Convention.  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Conven- 
tion be  presented  to  the  Hon.  George  Cabot,  in  testimony 
of  the  respectful  sense  they  entertain  of  his  conduct  whilst 
presiding  over  their  deliberations. 


393  HISTORY    OF   THE 

"  On  the  question  being  put  bv  the  secretary,  it  passed 
Id  the  affirmative,  unanimously.  On  motion,  voted,  that 
the  Convention  be  adjourned  till  7  o^clock,  this  evening, 
then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

"  Seven  o'clock,  P.  M. — The  committee  met,  pursuant 
o  adjournment.  On  motion,  voted,  tliat  the  report,  as 
amended,  and  the  resolves  accompanying  the  same,  be 
accepted  and  approved.  On  motion,  voted,  that  the  dele- 
gates from  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island, 
take  two  copies  of  the  report  of  the  Convention,  and  deli- 
ver the  same  to  the  governors  of  those  states,  agreeably 
to  the  Tote  of  the  Convention  passed  this  day,  and  that  the 
president  be  requested  to  transmit  two  copies  of  the  re- 
port to  the  governors  of  the  states  of  rSew-Hampshire  and 
Vermont,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  vote  of  the  Conven- 
tion aforesaid. 

*'  On  m.otion,  voted,  that  at  the  close  of  the  Conven- 
tion, the  journal  be  committed  to  the  care  of  the  president. 
On  motion,  voted,  that  the  Convention  be  adjourned  till 
to-morrow  morning,  9  o'clock,  then  to  meet  at  this  place. 

'•  Thursday,  January  5,  1815 — 9  o'clock,  A,  3/. 
**  The  Convention  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment — after 
solemn  prayer,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Strong,  on  motion,  voted, 
that  this  Convention  be  adjourned  w  ithout  day.  • 

"  Attest,  Theodore  Dwight,  Secretary.^* 

This  document,  when  placed  in  the  secretary's  office  at 
Boston,  was  accompanied  by  a  certificate  of  the  following 
tenor,  viz. 

"  I  George  Cabot,  late  president  of  the  Convention,  as- 
sembled at  Hartford,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  December, 
1814,  do  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing  is  the  original 
and  only  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  that  Convention  ; 
and  that  the  twenty-seven  written  pages,  which  compose 
it,  and  the  printed  report,  comprise  a  faithful  and  complete 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  WP 

record  of  all  the  motions,  resolutions,  rotes,  and  proceed- 
ing's, of  that  Convention.  And  I  do  further  certify,  that 
this  journal  has  been  constantly  in  my  exclusive  custody, 
from  the  time  of  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention,  to  the 
delivery  of  it  into  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  this  Com- 
monwealth. 

"  George  Cabot. 
''Boston,  Nov.  l^th,  1819." 

By  adverting  to  the  Report,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
Convention,  in  their  proceedings,  and  in  the  result,  kept 
strictly  within  the  limits  of  their  commissions.  They  cour 
ferred  upon  the  general  subjects  referred  to  them  for  con- 
sideration ;  and  after  mature  deliberation,  and  the  exercise 
of  the  utmost  caution,  discretion,  and  sound  judgment, 
they  embodied  their  views,  their  sentiments,  and  their  con- 
clusions, in  a  document  which  has  been  admired,  and  which 
will  be  admired,  even  by  future  generations,  as  one  of  the 
ablest  for  wisdom  and  talent  that  our  country  has  ever 
produced. 

After  a  concise,  but  forcible  review  of  the  policy  of  the 
government  previously  to  the  declaration  of  war,  the  Con- 
vention take  a  survey  of  the  state  of  things  after  that  event, 
and  of  the  calamities  which  it  had  brought  upon  the  na- 
tion;  and  close  with  recommending  to  the  legislatures  by 
whom  they  were  appointed,  the  following  resolutions  :  , 

**  Resolved,  That  it  be  and  is  hereby  recommended  to 
the  legislatures  of  the  several  states  represented  in  this 
Convention,  to  adopt  all  such  measures  as  may  be  neces- 
sary effectually  to  protect  the  citizens  of  said  states  from 
the  operation  and  effects  of  all  acts  which  have  been  or  may 
be  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  which  shall 
contain  provisions  subjecting  the  militia  or  other  citizens 
to  forcible  drafts,  conscriptions,  or  impressments,  not  au- 
thorised by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


400  HISTORY   OF   THE 

*'  Resolved i  That  it  be  and  hereby  is  recommended  to 
the  said  legislatures  to  authorise  an  immediate  and  earnest 
application  to  be  made  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  requesting  their  consent  to  some  arrangement, 
whereby  the  said  states  may  separately  or  in  concert,  be 
empowered  to  assume  upon  themselves  the  defence  of  their 
territory  against  the  enemy ;  and  a  reasonable  portion  of 
the  taxes  collected  within  said  states,  may  be  paid  into  the 
respective  treasuries  thereof,  and  appropriated  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  balance  due  said  states,  and  to  the  future  de- 
fence of  the  same.  The  amount  so  paid  into  the  said  trea- 
suries to  be  credited,  and  the  disbursements  made  as 
aforesaid,  to  be  charged  to  the  United  States. 

"  Resolved^  That  it  be,  and  it  hereby  is  recommended 
to  the  legislatures  of  the  aforesaid  states,  to  pass  laws 
(where  it  has  not  already  been  done)  authorising  the  Go- 
vernors or  Commanders  in  chief  of  their  mihtia,  to  make 
detachments  from  the  same,  or  to  form  voluntary  corps,  as 
shall  be  most  convenient  and  conformable  to  their  consti- 
tutions, and  to  cause  the  same  to  be  well  armed,  equipped, 
and  disciplined,  and  held  in  readiness  for  service;  and  upon 
the  request  of  the  Governor  of  either  of  tho  other  states, 
to  employ  the  whole  of  such  detachment  or  corps,  as  well 
as  the  regular  fgrces  of  the  state,  or  such  part  thereof 
as  may  be  required,  and  can  be  spared  consistently  with 
the  safety  of  the  state,  in  assisting  the  state  making  such 
request,  to  repel  any  invasion  thereof  which  shall  be  made 
or  attempted  by  the  public  enemy." 

The  other  resolutions  recommended  by  the  Convention 
to  their  several  legislatures,  consisted  of  various  proposi- 
tions for  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
a  practice  which  has  been  extensively  engaged  in  by  diffe- 
rent states,  almost  throughout  the  Union,  and  which  is 
harmless  in  itself;  and  as  the  mode  of  amending  that  in- 
strument is  pointed  out  by  itself,  it  is  not  necessaijy  to 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  401 

allude  to  them  in  the  present  work.  Nor  have  the  others 
which  we  have  copied  been  considered  as  reprehensible 
in  themselves.  To  recommend  to  the  legislatures  of  the 
states  to  adopt  such  measures  as  might  be  necessary  to 
protect  their  citizens  from  forcible  drafts,-  conscriptions, 
and  impressment,  cannot  fail  to  meet  with  the  approba- 
tion not  only  of  that  great  body  of  citizens  who  are  imme- 
diately exposed  to  the  effects  of  such  unconstitutional 
measures,  but  of  all  upright,  just,  and  virtuous  people,  of 
every  age,  and  in  whatever  circumstances  of  life. 

The  next  resolution  falling  directly  within  the  provision 
which  has  been  quoted,  will  be  as  little  likely  to  meet  with 
objections  from  any  quarter.  It  recommends  an  applica- 
tion to  Congress,  for  permission  to  assume  upon  themselves 
the  defence  of  their  own  territory,  and  to  appropriate  a 
portion  of  the  taxes  collected  within  those  states,  to  pay 
the  balance  due  the  states  for  money  already  advanced  in 
defending  their  coasts,  and  to  defray  any  further  expenses 
attending  their  future  efforts  for  the  same  object. 

The  third  resolution  recommends  to  the  legislatures  of 
^  the  several  states  which  they  represented,  to  pass  laws  for 
forming  volunteer  corps^  and  to  cause  them  to  be  armed 
and  equipped,  and  held  in  readiness  for  service,  and  if  ne- 
cessity required,  to  assist  each  other  in  defending  them- 
selves against  the  inroads  of  the  enemy. 

This  recommendation  pursues  the  course  pointed  out  by 
the  administration,  soon  after- the  commencement  of  the 
war,  when  they  called  upon  Massachusetts  to  send  a  body 
of  militia  to  Rhode  Island,  to  defend  the  town  and  port  of 
Newport  in  the  latter  state. 

The  case  of  the  Hartford  Convention  appears,  then,  to 
be  summarily  as  follows  :-^It  was  legitimate  in  its*  origin, 
in  no  respect  violating  any  provisions  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  either  in  its  letter  or  its  spirit.  The 
commissions  given  to  the  members  were  scrupulously 
guarded  against  any  unconstitutional  conduct  on  the  par^ 

51 


402  HISTORY    OF   tHE 

of  the  Convention,  giving  them  authority  only  to  confer 
together,  and  recommend  such  measures  to  their  principals 
as  they  might  deem  expedient,  taking  care  to  govern  them- 
selves by  a  regard  to  the  duties  and  obligations  which  the 
states  owed  to  the  United  States.  The  account  of  their 
proceedings  shows  that  they  punctiliously  observed  the  in- 
junctions contained  in  their  instructions  ;  and  the  result  of 
their  deliberations  proves  their  conduct  to  have  been,  in 
[every  respect,  strictly  constitutional. 

Notwithstanding  the- vast  amount  of  calumny  and  re- 
proach that  has  been  bestowed  upon  the  Hartford  Conven- 
tion by  the  ignorant  and  the  worthless,  it  will  not  be  a 
hazardous  assumption  to  say,  that  henceforward  no  mart 
who  justly  estimates  the  value  of  his  character  for  truth 
and  honesty,  and  who,  of  course,  means  to  sustain  such  a 
character,  will  risk  his  reputation  by  the  repetition  of  such 
falsehoods  respecting  that  body,  as  have  heretofore  been 
uttered  with  impunity.  No  man,  with  the  facts  before  him, 
can  do  this,  without  sacrificing  all  claim  to  veracity,  and, 
of  course,  to  integrity  and  honour.  Nor  will  the  subter- 
fuge that  the  journal  and  report  of  the  Convention  do  not  ^ 
contain  the  whole  of  their  proceedings,  save  him  from  the 
disgrace  of  wilfully  disregarding  the  truth.  Nearly  nine- 
teen years  have  elapsed  since  the  Convention  adjourned, 
and  no  proof  has  been  adduced,  and  nothing  nearer  proof, 
than  the  unsupported  assertions  of  the  corrupt  journals  of 
political  partizans,  of  any  measure  having  been  adopted 
or  recommended  by  the  Convention,  besides  those  con- 
tained in  the  journal  and  the  report.  If  there  was  any 
treason,  proposed  or  meditated,  against  the  United  States, 
at  the  Convention,  it  must  have  been  hidden  in  as  deep 
and  impenetrable  obscurity,  as  the  fabulous  secrets  of  free 
masonry  are  said  to  be  buried,  otherwise  some  traces  of 
it  would  have  been  discovered  and  disclosed  to  the  public 
before  this  late  period.     No  such  discovery  having  been 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  403 

made,  the  inference   must  necessarily  be,  that  no  such 
treasonable  practice  or  intention  existed. 

But,  in  the  nature  of  things,  nothing  could  have  been 
transacted  by  the  Convention,  beyond  what  appears  in 
their  journal  and  report.  They  were  a  public  body — a 
grand  committee  appointed  by  the  legislatures  of  three 
distinct  states,  to  confer,  and  report.  The  subjects  of 
their  conference  must  appear  in  their  journal;  otherwise 
they  could  never  obtain  a  legitimate  existence.  And  the 
report  must,  in  like  manner,  contain  the  entire  result  of 
their  deliberations,  because  nothing  that  did  not  appear 
embodied  in  that  document,  could,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
form  a  part  of  their  proceedings,  and  be  laid  before  their 
principals.  It  is  then  absurd  to  pretend  that  there  were 
other  proceedings,  which  have  been  kept  out  of  sight,  or 
suppressed,  and  never  revealed,  because  nothing  that  was 
thus  kept  back  could  have  formed  any  part  of  their  pro- 
ceedings. 

The  internal  evidence  of  the  case  is  therefore  sufficient 
to  show  the  groundlessness  of  the  charge  that  a  part  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  were  suppressed.  But 
the  certificate  of  Mr.  Cabot  has  been  quoted,  which  asserts 
in  direct  and  positive  terms,  that  the  journal  contains  "  a 
faithful  and  complete  record  of  all  the  motions^  resolutions^ 
votes,  and  proceedings  of  that  Convention.'''  If  this  certifi- 
cate is  false,  there  were,  at  the  time  it  was  made,  at  least 
•  twenty  individuals  of  the  highest  respectability  in  exist- 
ence, who  would  have  been  able  to  prove  its  falsity.  There 
are  no  less  than  twelve  such  individuals  now  living,  who 
are  able  to  impeach  its  correctness,  if  it  asserts  that  which 
is  not  true.  Mr.  Cabot  was  a  man  of  the  highest  respec- 
tability for  understanding,  integrity,  and  talents.  He  had 
more  reputation  to  lose  than  scores  together  of  those  who 
would  impeach  his  veracity  can  lay  claim  to  or  boast  of. 
His  declaration  on  any  subject  would  have  been  taken  for 
truth,  wherever  he  was  well  known,  with  as  much  confi- 


404  HISTORY    OF   THE 

dence  as  if  it  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  most  solemn 
oath.  Here  it  is  impeached  by  nothing  but  the  unsupport- 
ed assertions  or  suggestions  of  political  partizans — men 
without  manners,  without  principles,  and  of  course  without 
reputation. 

In  January,  1831,  the  publisher  of  a  newspaper  in  the 
State  of  Connecticut,  was  prosecuted  before  the  Superior 
Court  of  that  State  for  a  libel.  The  article  which  was 
the  foundation  of  the  prosecution,  contained  an  alhision  to 
the  Hartford  Convention.  Although  that  allusion  was 
not  the  basis  of  the  charge,  yet  the  opportunity  was  im- 
proved to  draw  from  one  of  the  members  of  that  body 
some  facts  respecting  its  character  and  conduct.  The 
member  referred  to  was  Roger  Minot  Sherman,  a  lawyer 
of  great  eminence,  and  a  gentleman  of  the  highest  respec- 
tability of  character,  both  professional  and  personal.  He 
was  regularly  summoned  as  a  witnes-s,  on  a  collateral 
point,  and  not  material  to  the  issue  before  the  court,  and 
was  examined  at  length.  There  is  very  little  doubt  that 
the  object  was,  to  ascertain  from  this  source,  whether  there 
was  any  thing  treasonable,  or  seditious,  in  the  proceedings 
of  the  Convention.  In  the  course  of  his  testimony  he 
said — 

*'  There  was  not,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  a  sin- 
gle motion,  resolution,  or  subject  of  debate,  but  what  appears 
in  the  Journal.''''  In  answer  to  a  question  put  to  him,  he 
replied — *'  I  believe  I  know  their  proceedings  perfectly, 
and  that  every  measure,  done  or  proposed,  has  been  published 
to  the  world. ^^ 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  both  Mr.  Cabot  and  Mr.  Sher- 
man were  members  of  the  Convention,  and  however  hi^h 
their  standing  in  the  community,  as  men  of  the  purest 
morals,  and  the  most  unsullied  integrity,  may  have  been, 
still  they  must  be  considered  as  involved  in  its  guilt,  if 
guilt  actually  existed,  and  therefore  they  are  witnesses 
interested    in    the   question,    and    not     entitled    to    the 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  405 

full    measure  of    credit    which  would   otherwise  be   due 
to  them.     It  then  only  remains  for  the  only  individual  who 
was  present  at  the  Convention,  and  was  not   a  member, 
and  who  alone  had  the  opportunity  to  be  fully  acquaint- 
ed with  all  their  proceedings,  to  give  his  testimony.     This 
testimony  is  not  offered  because  the  exigencies  of  the  case 
in  any  sense  require  it.     If  a  hundred  disinterested  indi- 
viduals of  the  most  unquestioned  integrity  could  be  found, 
who  were  as  well  acquainted  with  the  facts  as  the  two 
persons  who  have  already  been  named,  and   who  should 
concur  in  their  declarations,  their  united  testimony  would 
not  add  a  particle  of  strength  to  that  of  Messrs.  Cabot 
and  Sherman,  where  the  characters  of  the  latter  were 
known.     But  if  a   disintej*ested  witness  should  be  kept 
back,   who   might  be  produced,   an  inference   might  be 
drawn  by  some  caviller,  from  that  circumstance,  unfavour- 
able  to  the  character   and   conduct   of  the  Convention. 
Such  a  witness  is  the  author  of  this  work — the  Secretary 
of  the  Convention  ;   and  he  feels  it  a  duty  which  he  owes 
to  truth,  and  the  characters  of  as  respectable,  patriotic, 
and  virtuous  a  body  of  men,  as  ever  were  collected  on  any 
occasion,   to  say,  in   the   most  positive  and  unhesitating 
manner,  and  with  all  the   solemnity  which  the  nature  of 
the  case  requires,  that  the  Journal  and  the  Report  of 
THE  Convention,  contain  a  full,  complete,  and  spe- 
cific   ACCOUNT    OF  ALL  THE    MOTIONS,  VOTES,  AND  PRO- 
CEEDINGS  OF  THE  Convention.     And   he  will  add,  that 
no  proposition  was  made  in  the  Convention  to  divide  the 
Union,  to  organize  the  New  England  State 
rate  government,  or  to  form  an  alliance 
tain,  or  any  other  foreign  power ;  on  the  contrary,  every 
motion  that  was  made,  every  resolution  that  was  offered, 
and  every  measure  that  was   adopted,  was,  in  principle 
and  in  terms,  strictly  confined  within  the  limits  of  the  in- 
structions from  the  several  legislatures  by  whom  the  dele- 
gates were  appointed.    And  when  the  Report  was  adopted, 


ition  to  divide  the  I 
States  into  a  sepa-  I 
e  with   Great  Bri-    ' 


406  HISTORY    OF    THE 

it  was  by  an  unanimous  vote,  sanctioned  by  the  signature 
of  every  member. 

The  effect  of  this  declaration  upon  the  public  mind, 
will  of  course  bo  left  to  the  decision  of  the  public. 

The  legislative  acts  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and 
Rhode  Island,  containing  provisions  for  the  appointment 
of  Delegates  to  meet  in  Convention,  and  stating  the  gene- 
ral objects  of  the  measure,  specifying  the  powers  and  au- 
thorities by  which  their  conduct  should  be  regulated,  and 
prescribing  the  limits  within  which  tHey  were  to  be  con- 
fined, it  will  be  recollected  were  passed  in  the  month  of 
October,  1814.  The  condition  of  the  country  at  large, 
and  particularly  that  of  the  New  England  States  upon  the 
Atlantic  coast,  has  been  alluded  to  and  explained.  At 
that  time,  the  towns  upon  the  sea-shore  were  exposed  to 
hostile  invasion  by  the  enemy's  naval  forces — several  of 
the  towns  had  been  captured,  some  places  had  been  at- 
tacked by  their  ships,  property  to  a  great  amount  destroyed, 
the  whole  extent  of  the  coast,  from  the  border  of  New- York 
to  Eastport,  had  been  essentially  abandoned  by  the  United 
States  troops,  and  the  defence  of  it  thrown  upon  the  indi- 
vidual states — those  states  had  large  bodies  of  men  in  the 
field,  guarding  the  towns,  defending  the  forts,  and  protecting 
the  inhabitants,  at  a  most  enormous  sacrifice  of  time  and 
money  ;  and  in  the  darkest  and  most  threatening  period 
of  the  war,  the  United  States  government  had  withdrawn 
their  supplies  for  the  militia,  and  forced  the  states  to  sup- 
port their  own  men  in  the  national  service.  At  the  same 
time,  the  taxes  imposed  and  collected  by  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  expenses  of  the  war,  were 
extremely  burthensome ;  and  to  add  to  the  general  mass 
of  calamity,  the  currency  of  the  country  had  become  de- 
ranged, and  depreciated  to  such  a  degree,  that  the  most 
extensive  distress  was  threatened  from  that  fruitful  source 
of  evil. 

Just  at  this  moment,  the  despatches  from  the  Commis- 


^    /  HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  407 

sioners  at  Ghent  were  published,  showing  that  such  ex- 
travagant demands  were  made  by  the  British,  as  the  basis 
of  negotiation,  that  there  was  scarcely  a  ray  of  hope  that 
peace  would  be  obtained.  And  such  was  the  language  of  the 
execqtiv0.4»^bers  of  our  government.  The  letter  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  to  the  military  Committee  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  from  which  extracts  have  been  made, 
was  dated  October  17th,  1814.  In  that  extraordinary 
document,  every  effort  was  made  to  alarm  the  country, 
not  only  with  regard  to  the  continuance  of  the  war,  and 
the  bopelessness  of  peace,  but  to  convey  the  idea  that  it 
would  thenceforward  be  a  war  of  the  most  violent,  despe- 
rate, and  dangerous  description — that  we  were  fighting, 
not  only  for  our  liberty  and  independence,  but  for  exist- 
ence— and  that  if  we  made  any  dishonourable  concession  to 
Great  Britain,  the  spirit  of  the  nation  would  be  broken, 
and  the  foundation  of  our  liberty  and  independence  shaken. 

In  addition  to  all  these  considerations,  the  manner  of 
conducting  the  war  had  been  such  from  the  beginning,  as 
to  manifest  great  inability  in  the  administration  and  their 
agents,  and  to  destroy  all  confidence,  not  only  in  their  prin- 
ciples, but  in  their  capacity  for  conducting  the  affairs  of 
the  nation. 

Under  such  circumstances,  and  with  such  a  prospect 
for  the  ensuing  year,  the  New  England  States  were  under 
the  necessity,  for  their  self-preservation,  to  consult  together, 
for  the  purpose,  if  practicable,  of  devising  and  adopting 
some  system  of  operations  which  might  conduce  to  their 
own  safety.  The  situation  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
and  Connecticut,  rendered  it  indispensably  necessary  that 
they  should  take  preliminary  measures  of  this  description, 
previously  to  the  opening  of  another  campaign.  The  Pre- 
sident had  directed  a  call  to  be  made  upon  Massachusetts, 
at  a  very  early  stage  of  the  war,  to  furnish  men  for  the 
defence  of  Newport,  in  Rhode  Island.  At  that  time  the 
danger  of  invasion  was  inconceivably  less  than  it  was  in 


408  HISTORY    OF   THE 

October,  1814.  What  part  of  the  New  England  coast 
would  be  the  object  of  the  next  hostile  visit,  could  not  be 
known,  or  conjectured.  But  that  there  was  at  that  time 
*'  imminent  danger  of  invasion,"  could  not  be  denied,  or 
doubted.  And  that  the  whole  extent  of  the  coast  was  left 
destitute  of  the  means  of  defence,  was  a  fact  not  to  be 
questioned. 

Under  circumstances  like  these,  the  general  subject  was 
presented  to  the  cansideration  of  those  states.  If  defend- 
ed at  all,  they  must  defend  themselves.  This  was  the 
import  of  the  correspondence  which  the  national  govern- 
ment had  carried  on  with  those  states  froFn  the  beginning. 
The  danger  was  common  to  them,  and  it  was  therefore 
absolutely  necessary,  in  the  performance  of  the  duty  which 
the  national  government  had  forced  upon  them,  that  some 
general  plan  of  operations  should  be  devised,  which  would 
be  the  most  likely  to  accomplish  the  object  in  view.  The 
New  England  States,  therefore,  in  adopting  the  course  they 
were  pursuing,  were  not  volunteers.  The  national  govern- 
ment had  withdrawn  from  them  all  the  means  of  defence 
which  they  possessed,  and  then  informed  them  they  must 
defend  themselves.  And  having  brought  those  states  in- 
to this  j)redicament,  they  did  not  even  furnish  them  with 
their  advice  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  their  de- 
fence was  to  be  conducted.  They  left  it  to  themselves  to 
supply  the  means,  and  to  use  them  in  the  manner  which 
they  might  suppose  would  best  accomplish  the  object  in 
view.  They  adopted  the  plan  of  holding  a  convention  of 
delegates,  who  should  meet  and  consult  upon  the  great 
subject  of  defending  their  coasts  from  invasion,  their  towns 
from  being  sacked  and  plundered,  their  property  from  be- 
ing wasted  and  destroyed,  their  houses  and  their  homes 
from  being  pillaged  and  broken  up,  and  their  families 
from  being  scattered  or  massacred.  To  proceed  with 
the  utmost  prudence  and  caution,  they  selected  the  wisest 
and  most  virtuous  members  of  their  several  communities 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  409 

— men  of  great  experience,  sound  principles,  mature  age, 
holding  large  stakes  in  the  public  welfare,  and  highly  es- 
teemed for  integrity,  public  services,  and  patriotism.  And 
to  render  the  matter  perfectly  secure,  the  legislatures  by 
whom  the  delegates  were  ap{)ointed,  took  care  to  furnish 
them  with  commissions,  specifically  prescribing  the  duties 
which  they  were  to  perform,  and  the  limits  within  which 
they  were  to  operate.     In  Massachusetts,  their  delegates  % 
were  instructed  "  to  devise.,  if  practicable,  means  of  security  | , 
and  defence  ivhich  may  he  consistent  ivith  the  preservation  of,  \ 
their  resources  from  total  ruin,  and  adapted  to  their  local  \| 
situation,  mutual  relations  and  habits,  not  repugnant  TO  % 

THEIR  OBLIGATIONS  AS  MEMBERS  OF  THE  UnION."      The 

resolution  of  the  legislature  of  Connecticut  was  equally 
specific  and  guarded.  Their  delegates  were  instructed  to 
meet  those  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  and 
of  other  states  who  should  appoint,  and  "  confer  with  them 
on  the  subjects  proposed  by  a  resolution  of  said  Common- 
wealth, and  upon  any  other  subjects  which  may  come  be- 
fore them,  for  the  purpose  of  devising  and  recommending 
such  measures  for  the  safety  and  welfare  of  these  states 

AS  MAY  CONSIST  WITH  OUR  OBLIGATIONS  AS  MEMBERS  OF 

THE  NATIONAL  Union."  The  Rhode  Island  legislature 
instructed  their  delegates  to  confer  with  such  delegates  as 
are  or  shall  be  appointed  by  other  states,  upon  the  com- 
mon dangers  to  which  these  states  are  exposed,  upon  the 
best  means  of  co-operating  for  our  mutual  defence  against 
the  enemy,  and  upon  the  measures  which  it  may  be  in  the 
power  of  said  states,  consistently  with  their  obliga- 
tions, to  adopt,  to  restore  and  secure  to  the  people  their 
rights  and  privileges  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States:' 

The  great  object  of  the  states,  then,  in  calling  a  con- 
vention, was,  to  confer  on  the  practicability  of  devising  means 
of  security  and  defence — that  is,  to  perform  the  task  which 

the  national  government  had  thrown  upon  them  in  1812, 

62 


410  HISTORY   OF    THE 

and  which  had  been  left  upon  them  down  to  the  time  of 
appointing  delegates  to  meet  in  convention,  and  which  had 
now  become  so  imperative  that  there  was  no   ro^m  to 
avoid  it.     But,  at  the  same  time,  in  holding  this   confer- 
ence, nothing  was  to  be  done  that  was  not  compatible  with 
the  duties  and  obligations  of  the  states  as  members  of  the 
Union.     These   commissions  were  precisely   similar   in 
their  character  to  powers  of  attorney,  in  which  the  prin- 
cipals give  the  agents  authority  to  perform  certain  acts 
specified  in  the  instruments.     To  the  extent  of  that  au- 
thority the  agents  may  act,  and  no  further.     If  the  agent* 
transcend  those  limits,  whatever  they  may  attempt  to  per- 
form beyond  the  scope  of  their  authority  is  not  binding 
upon  the  principals,  and  of  course  is  void.     In  these  com- 
missions, however,  the  delegates  were  not  clothed  with 
power  to  do  any  thing  except  to  confer  with  their  associ- 
ates, for  the   purpose  of  devising  means  for  the  defence 
and  security  of  the  states  which  they  represented.    What- 
ever conclusions  they   might  eventually  come  to,  must  of 
course  be  reported  to  the  legislatures  by  whom  they  were 
appointed  and  commissioned,  for  them  to  adopt  or  reject, 
as  they  might  think  expedient.    Here,  it  will  be  recollect- 
ed, were  the  representatives  of  three  states.     Upon  re- 
ceiving their  report,  one  state  might  adopt,  another  might 
reject,  and  a  third  might  not  do  either,  but  adopt  in  part, 
and  reject  in  part ;  or  the  three  might  reject  the  whole 
report. 

But  whatever  was  done,  or  recommended  to  be  done^ 
was  to  be  governed  by  the  principles  of  loyalty  to  the 
Uiiion  and  Government  of  the  United  States.  This  limi- 
tation of  power  confined  the  Convention  strictly  ivithin 
constitutional  limits.  The  constitution  provides  that  "  No 
state  shall,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  duty 
on  tonnage,  keep  troops  or  ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace, 
enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact  with  another  state, 
or  with  a  foreign  power,  or  engage  in  war,  unless  actual- 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  411 

iy  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent  danger  as  will  not  admit 
of  delay."  Had  the  Convention  disregarded  their  autho- 
rity so  far  as  to  recommend  the  adoption  of  either  of  these 
prohibited  acts,  without  the  previous  consent  of  Congress, 
their  recommendation  would  have  been  void,  for  the  want 
of  power  in  themselves  even  to  advise  such  a  course.  In 
addition  to  which,  their  recommendation  of  any  course 
would  not  have  bound  the  legislatures.  To  give  it  any 
validity,  the  latter  bodies  must  have  adopted  it,  and  made 
it  their  own. 

Having  given  a  history  of  the  war,  and  of  the  manner 
in  which  it  was  conducted  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
with  the  view  of  placing  before  the  public  a  correct  ac- 
count of  the  events  which  led  to  the  assembling  of  tho 
Hartford  Convention,  it  may  be  well  to  devote  a  few  mo- 
ments to  its  termination  by  the  treaty  of  peace. 

On  the  18lh  of  February,  1815,  the  President  of  the 
United  States  transmitted  a  message  to  both  houses  of 
Congress,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract — 

*'  1  lay  before  Congress  copies  of  the  treaty  of  peace  and 
amity  between  the  United  States  and  his  Britannic  majesty, 
which  was  signed  by  the  commissioners  of  both  parties  at 
Ghent,  on  the  24th  of  December,  1814,  and  the  ratifica- 
tions of  which  have  been  duly  exchanged. , 

**  While  performing  this  act,  I  congratulate  you,  and 
our  constituents,  upon  an  event  ichich  is  liiglily  honourable 
to  the  nation,  and  terminates  with  peculiar  felicity,  a  cam- 
paign signalized  hy  the  most  brilliant  successes. 

"  The  late  war,  although  reluctantly  declared  by  Con- 
gress, had  become  a  necessary  resort,  to  assert  the  rights 
and  independence  of  the  nation.  It  has  been  waged  with 
a  success  which  is  the  natural  result  of  the  wisdom  of  the  le- 
gislative councils,  of  the  patriotism  of  the  people,  of  the 
public  spirit  of  the  militia,  and  of  the  valour  of  the  mili- 
tary and  naval  forces  of  the  country.  Peace,  at  all  times 
a  blessing,  is  peculiarly  welcome,  therefore,  at  a  period 


412  HISTORY   OF   THE 

when  the  causes  for  the  war  have  ceased  to  operate,  when 
the  government  has  demonstrated  the  efficiency  of  its 
powers  of  defence,  and  when  the  nation  can  review  its 
conduct  without  regret,  and  without  reproach." 

The  only  cause  of  war,  at  the  end  of  five  days  after  its 
declaration,  was  that  of  the  impressment  of  our  seamen 
by  British  cruisers.  The  prevention  of  this  evil  was  consi- 
dered by  our  government  an  object  of  sufficient  importance 
to  justify  the  expenditure  of  the  treasure  and  blood  which 
was  caused  by  the  war.  Many  declarations  of  the  govern- 
ment have  been  quoted  in  this  work,  from  both  the  execu- 
tive and  legislative  departments,  intended  to  impress  upon 
the  minds  of  the  public  at  large,  as  well  as  upon  those  of 
the  commissioners  for  negotiating  a  peace,  the  indispensa- 
ble importance  of  obtaining  security  against  the  further 
adoption  of  the  practice.  As  late  as  January,  1814,  the 
Secretary  of  State  informed  the  plenipotentiaries  at  Got- 
tenburg  that  *'  The  sentiments  of  the  President  had  un- 
dergone no  change  on  that  important  subject.  This  de- 
grading practice  must  cease :  our  flag  must  protect  the 
crew,  or  the  United  States  cannot  consider  themselves  an 
independent  nation."  In  January,  1813,  the  con^mittee 
of  foreign  relations  of  the  House  of  Representatives  say, 
*' War  having  been  declared,  and  the  case  of  impressment 
being  necessarily  included  as  one  of  the  most  important 
causes,  it  is  evident  that«7  must  he  provided  for  in  the  paci- 
fication :  the  omission  of  it  in  a  treaty  of  peace  would  not 
leave  it  on  its  former  ground:  it  would  in  effect  he  an  ahso- 
lute  relinquishment^^ — *'  It  is  an  evil  which  ought  not,  which 
cannot  he  longer  tolerated''^ — "  It  is  incompatihle  with  their 
sovereignty.  It  is  suhversive  of  the  main  pillars  of  their  in- 
dependence.^^ But  the  case  of  impressment  was  not  pro- 
vided for  in  the  pacification.  So  far  from  it,  the  subject 
is  not  once  mentioned,  or  even  alluded  to  in  the  whole 
course  of  the  treaty.  So  far,  then,  from  gaining  this, 
which  was  avowedly  the  sole  object  of  the  war  when  it 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  413 

was  declared,  as  well  as  when  these  various  declarations 
were  made,  and  this  strong  language  was  used,  it  must, 
according  to  those  declarations,  be  considered  as  having 
been  left  on  worse  ground  than  that  on  which  it  stood  up- 
on before  the  war; — indeed,  as  having  been  absolutely  re- 
linquished ;  for  no  stipulation  was  entered  into,  no  agree- 
ment made,  not  even  an  informal  understanding  was  had 
with  refj^ard  to  it,  and  the  evil  which  jcould  not  be  longer 
tolerated,  which  was  incompatible  with  our  sovereignty, 
and  subversive  of  the  main  pillars  of  our  independence, 
was  entirely  unnoticed  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war  and 
the  negotiations  for  peace.  And  this  was,  in  fact,  the  ef- 
fect of  an  "absolute  relinquishment"  of  the  subject  by 
the  positive  order  of  the  President.  It  has  been  seen, 
that  in  a  letter  of  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  State 
to  the  commissioners,  dated  June  27th,  1814,  the  latter 
were  informed,  that  if  they  should  find  it  indispensably 
necessary  in  order  to  terminate  the  war,  they  might  omit 
any  stipulation  in  the  treaty  on  the  subject  of  impressment. 
And  yet  notwithstanding  all  this — notwithstanding  no  sin- 
gle object  for  which  the  war  was  declared  was  accomplish- 
ed, and  the  treaty  of  peace  has  no  reference  to  such  object, 
the  President,  in  a  public  message  to  Congress,  declares, 
that  the  peace  was  an  event  "highly  honourable  to  the 
nation,"  and  that  it  terminated  "with  peculiar  felicity  a 
campaign  signalized  hy  the  most  brilliant  successes. '^'^ 

Even  the  subject  of  impressment,  for  the  pii^pose  of 
getting  rid  of  which  it  had  been  exclusively  maintained, 
almost  from  the  beginning,  had  been  formally  abandoned, 
and  the  controversy  had  in  October,  1814,  in  fact,  though 
secretly,  assumed  its  true  character,  which  was  that  of  a 
war  for  the  support  of  the  personal  popularity  of  the  na- 
tional administration,  and  not  for  the  protection  of  the 
rights  and  honour  of  the  nation.  Having  in  terms  relin- 
quished the  idea  of  obtaining  security  against  impress- 
ment in  the  treaty  of  peace,  the  only  object  was  to  retire 


414  HISTORY    OF   THE 

from  the  contest  with  as  little  loss  of  reputation,  to  those 
who  involved  the  country  in  it,  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
would  admit.  To  accomplish  this  object,  the  attempt  to 
force  the  militia  into  the  regular  army,  in  defiance  of  the 
express  provisions  and  principles  of  the  constitution,  was 
made.  It  was  defeated  by  the  patriotic  and  independent 
stand  taken  at  the  outset  by  the  New-England  govern- 
ments ;  and  to  those  governments  is  it  solely  owing,  that 
a  precedent  so  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  country 
was  not  established. 

It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  reconcile  the  foregoing  de- 
clarations of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  United  States  with 
the  facts  which  have  been  alluded  to.  How  is  it  possible 
that  a  peace  could  be  "  highly  honourable  to  the  nation," 
when  the  single  object  for  which  the  war  was  carried  on 
was  not  accomplished  ?  The  fact  that  we  gained  splendid 
naval  victories,  and  that  the  British  were  repulsed  at  New- 
Orleans,  do  not  prove  it.  M'Donough's  victory  on  Lake 
Champlain  was  a  briUiant  achievement,  as  well  as  the  re- 
pulse of  the  British  at  New-Orleans.  But  the  latter  event 
occurred  in  January,  1815,  two  weeks  after  the  treaty  of 
peace  was  signed,  and  therefore  could  not  with  propriety 
be  considered  as  having  terminated  the  campaign.  But 
against  these  signal  victories  the  capture  of  the  city  of 
Washington,  the  destruction  of  the  public  buildings,  and 
the  flight  of  the  officers  of  the  government,  must  be  placed 
as  a  set-off.  Besides,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the 
war  was'^m  our  part  an  offensive  war;  and  was  waged 
professedly  for  the  vindication  of  national  rights.  The 
victory  of  New-Orleans,  which  has  been  considered  as  the 
most  brilliant  event  achieved  by  our  land  forces  during  the 
war,  was  the  fruit  of  a  defensive  battle  merely,  fought  upon 
our  own  ground,  and  for  the  protection  of  one  of  our  own 
cities.  The  event,  therefore,  however  reputable  to  those 
by  whom  the  battle  was  fought,  reflects  no  credit  on  the 
administration  and  their  friends,  who  declared  the  war. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  415 

To  have  gained  honour  to  themselves,  required  something 
more  than  mere  defensive  operations.  That  we  were  able 
in  that  one  instance  to  defend  ourselves,  furnishes  very 
slight  evidence  of  the  wisdom  of  our  legislative  councils, 
by  whom  the  war  was  declared.  As  far  as  it  went,  it 
proved  the  efficiency  of  the  powers  of  the  government  in 
self-defence.  But  there  were  many  events  in  the  course 
of  the  war  which  demonstrated  the  opposite  fact — which 
showed  its  inefficiency  for  defence.  And  this  inefficiency 
was  acknowledged  in  the  calls  made  by  the  administra- 
tion for  the  militia,  in  which  it  was  stated  expressly,  that 
the  regular  troops  were  ordered  from  the  Atlantic  coast, 
and  of  course,  that  the  coast  would  be  left  without  defence, 
unless  the  militia  were  detailed  upon  the  service. 

The  truth  is,  the  peace,  so  far  from  being  highly  honour- 
able to  the  country,  was  in  an  equal  degree  disgraceful. 
The  mere  circumstance  that  "the  causes  for  the  war  had 
ceased  to  operate,"  proves  nothing.  Those  causes  would 
have  ceased  to  operate  in  the  same  manner,  whenever  a 
peace  should  take  place  in  Europe,  as  certainly  without  a 
war  on  our  part  against  Great  Britain,  as  with  it.  Such  a 
peace,  it  was  well  known,  must  first  or  last  occur,  because 
a  perpetual  war  was  not  in  the  nature  of  things  to  be  ex- 
pected. War  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain,  at 
the  time,  was  calculated  to  put  off  the  peace  in  Europe,  ra- 
ther than  to  accelerate  it.  Peace  eventually  occurred,  by 
the  final  overthrow  of  the  great  Disturber  of  that  quar- 
ter of  the  globe — the  man  in  whose  favour  the  war  was 
intended  to  operate — a  short  time  after  the  treaty  of 
Ghent  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and 
was  brought  to  pass  by  the  great  and  decisive  battle  of 
Waterloo,  on  the  18th  day  of  June,  1815 — the  anniversary 
of  the  Declaration  of  War  hy  the  United  States  against 
Great  Britain.  This  country  is  in  a  worse  condition  as  it 
regards  security  in  any  future  war,  against  impressment 
by  the  British,  than  it  would  have  been  if  the  treaty  nego- 


416 

tiated  by  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  had  been  ratified ; 
and  much  worse  than  it  would  have  been  if  the  war  had 
not  been  declared.  That  treaty  was  accompanied  by  an 
informal  understanding  entered  into  by  the  commissioners, 
that  at  some  future  time  impressment  should  become  the 
subject  of  further  negotiation.  Now  we  have  no  security 
even  for  that  privilege ;  but  if  an  occasion  should  ever 
hereafter  occur,  which  should  render  it  convenient  for  the 
British  to  engage  anew  in  the  practice,  they  could  do  it 
without  infringing  the  stipulations  of  a  treaty,  or  even  vio- 
lating an  informal  understanding.  The  United  States 
would  then  have  as  strong  an  inducement  to  engage  in  a 
second  war,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  Great  Britain  to 
give  up  the  practice,  as  they  had  in  that  of  1812 — that  is, 
if  impressment  was  the  real  cause  of  the  war.  In  that 
event,  they  may  have  another  opportunity  to  go  through 
a  warfare  of  two  years  and  a  half  more ;  and  then  make 
a  peace  "  highly  honourable  to  the  country,"  without  gain- 
ing the  object  for  which  the  war  was  made,  and  ascribe 
the  result  to  "  the  wisdom  of  the  legfslature,"  and  '*  the 
cessation  of  the  causes  of  the  war." 

But  this  result  proves,  in  the  most  conclusive  manner, 
the  correctness  of  the  views  of  those  who  were  opposed  to 
the  war.  They  contended  that  the  country  was  utterly 
unprepared  for  war,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  rush  into 
it,  foreseeing  that  its  effects  would  be  disastrous,  and 
its  termination  disreputable  to  the  government,  and  the 
country.  They  did  not  believe  that  the  real  causes  of  the 
war  were  alleged  in  the  manifesto  which  preceded  it ;  and 
the  event  showed  that  their  belief  was  well  founded.  In 
short,  judging  of  the  character  of  the  war,  the  capacity  of 
those  who  were  the  appointed  agents  to  conduct  it,  and 
the  fact  of  its  being  brought  to  a  close  without  securing 
one  of  its  avowed  objects,  and  all  intelligent  and  upright 
people  must  justify  the  opposers  of  the  war  in  withhold- 
ing their  sanction  from  its  justice,  and  their  approbation 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  417 

from  the  sentiment  that  peace  was  "  highly  honourable 

TO  THE  COUNTRY." 

The  readers  of  this  work  have  now  had  a  full  opportu- 
nity to  become  acquainted  with  the  causes  which  gave  rise 
to  the  Hartford  Convention,  the  duties  which  that  Conven- 
tion were  called  upon  to  perform,  the  principles  by  which 
they  were  governed  in  their  proceedings,  and  the  manner 
in  which  they  performed  those  duties.  It  will  also  have 
been  perceived,  that  it  has  not  been  the  object  of  the  au- 
thor to  frame  an  apology  either  for  the  Convention,  or  for 
the  legislative  authorities  by  whom  the  Convention  was 
appointed.  His  object  has  been  by  the  simple  force  of 
truth,  to  stop  the  mouth  of  calumny,  to  turn  the  current 
of  falsehood  back  upon  its  authors,  to  free  historical  evi- 
dence from  the  mists  in  which  it  has  for  so  many  years 
been  involved  and  obscured,  and  if  possible,  to  kindle  a 
blush  of  shame  on  the  cheek  of  political  fraud  and  profli- 
gacy. Instead  of  apologizing  for  the  New-England  States 
for  their  conduct  during  the  late  unprincipled  war,  he  en- 
tertains not  a  doubt  that  the  example  which  was  set  by 
those  states,  when  they  were  drawn  into  competition  with 
the  national  government,  the  unshaken  resolution  which 
they  manifested  in  support  of  their  own  rights,  and  par- 
ticularly in  defence  of  the  rights  of  the  militia,  will  be  the 
means  of  protecting  that  large  and  most  important  class 
of  citizens  from  all  future  attempts  to  deprive  them  of 
their  constitutional  rights,  and  to  force  them,  at  the  will 
•of  a  despotic  administration,  into  the  ranks  of  a  standing 
army.  Had  not  the  New-England  States  made  a  firm  stand 
in  defence  of  their  constitutional  privileges  and  preroga- 
tives, the  next  war  in  which  the  nation  shall  be  engaged, 
would  have  reduced  the  individual  states  under  the  power 
and  placed  them  at  the  mercy  of  the  national  government. 
All  that  would  have  been  necessary  to  the  accomplishment 
of  the  object,  would  be  a  declaration,  whether  true  or  false, 
ihat  the  country  was  in  danger  of  invasion,  and  a  demand 

53 


418  HISTORY    OF   THE 

for  any  number  of  the  militia  which  the  Executive  might 
think  proper  to  order,  to  be  placed  under  the  command  of 
United  States  officers,  and  made  liable  to  be  marched  to 
any  rendezvous  which  the^  President,  or  any  subordinate 
officer  under  him  should  direct.  This  would  at  a  stroke 
deprive  the  states  of  their  militia — their  only  safeguard 
against  tyranny  and  oppression  ;  and  the  national  govern- 
ment would  at  once  be  in  possession  of  a  power  sufficient 
to  overthrow  their  liberties  and  independence. 

Mr,  Giles's  bill,  introduced  into  the  Senate,  in  October, 
1814,  was  founded  upon  Mr.  Monroe's  plan  for  a  conscrip- 
tion. It  provided  for  raising  eighty  thousand  men  for  the 
United  States  service.  The  manner  in  which  they  were  to 
be  obtained  has  been  stated.  The  object  was  to  make 
them  regular  soldiers,  to  be  placed  under  the  command  of 
United  States  officers,  and  of  course  to  remove  them  be- 
yond the  limits  and  controul  of  state  authority,  put  them 
in  garrisons,  march  them  to  the  frontiers,  or  to  any  other 
point  to  which  they  might  be  ordered  by  the  Secretary  of 
War.  This  would  of  course  subject  them  to  the  militaify 
despotism  which  is  centered  in,  and  exercised  under  the 
"Rules  and  Articles  of  War."  This  vast  body  of  men, 
far  more  numerous  than  the  United  States  ever  had  in  the 
field  on  any  former  occasion,  either  in  the  revolutionary 
war,  or  since,  would  have  been  under  the  absolute  direc- 
tion and  controul  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  liable  to  be  employed  in  any  service  upon  which  he 
might  think  proper  to  detach  them.  What  security  would 
the  country  have  had  agajnst  such  a  formidable  force,  in 
the  hands  of  a  daring,  ambitious,  unprincipled  warrior, 
who  was  disposed  to  plant  the  standard  of  his  own  autho- 
rity on  the  ruins  of  his  country's  freedom  f  The  question 
need  not  be  answered.  The  condition  of  the  New-Eng- 
land states  may  be  alluded  to,  in  the  room  of  a  more  spe- 
cific reply  to  this  inquiry.  Pressed  along  the  whole  length 
of  the  .coast  by  the  fleets  and  forces  of  a  flushed  and  vin- 


HARTFORD   CONVENTION.  419 

«3ictive  foe,  robbed  of  their  militia,  and  exhausted  of  their 
means  for  carrying  on  military  operations  against  either 
a  foreign  or  domestic  enemy,  they  would  have  been  at  the 
mercy  of  whatever  '*  Military  Chieftain  "  might  have  hap- 
pened to  be  commander-in-chief.  What  would,  under 
such  circumstances,  have  been  their  fate,  might,  under 
different  circumstances,  have  been  the  fate  of  other  states. 
Nor  would  it  be  a  difficult  task  for  an  ambitious  soldier,  at 
the  head  of  such  a  force,  to  subvert  every  vestige  of  x^^ 
publicanism  in  our  national  government,  and  place  him- 
self at  the  head  of  a  military  despotism. 

Speculations  of  this  kind,  in  a  time  of  peace,  and  when 
neither  v»^ar,  nor  even  rumours  of  war,  exist,  may  be  con- 
sidered extravagant.  But  as  the  last  war  was, undertaken 
for  political  and  personal  interests,  another  may  be  waged 
for  reasons  equally  unwarrantable  and  reprehensible.  The 
measures  of  the  administration  during  the  war  of  1812, 
will  justify  the  remarks  that  have  been  made,  and  the  spe- 
culations that  have  been  suggested.  It  is  true  that  Mr. 
Madison  was  not  much  of  a  hero,  and  in  all  probability 
would  have  hesitated,  even  under  the  circumstances  sup- 
posed, before  he  would  have  placed  himself  at  the  head  of 
the  army,  the  raising  of  which  Mr.  Giles's  bill  contempla- 
ted, and  made  a  daring  effort  to  conquer  and  enslave  his 
country.  But  he  had  nerve  enough  to  commence  his  mili- 
tary career,  by  a  series  of  bold  attempts  to  violate  the  con- 
stitution of  his  country.  And  as  the  war  advanced,  and 
difficulties  and  dangers  multiplied  around  him,  his  courage 
rose  to  a  higher  pitch,  until  he  was,  in  a  desperate  mo- 
ment, induced  to  aim  a  fatal  blow  at  some  of  the  most 
important  provisions  and  principles  of  the  great  charter  of 
its  freedom. 

It  is,  however,  believed,  that  it  was  not  originally  his 
wish  to  plunge  the  nation  into  a  war.  He  received  the 
government  from  the  hands  of  his  immediate  prede- 
cessor, embarrassed  with  all  the  difficulties  which  the  lat- 


420  HISTORY    OF   THE 

ter  had  planted  around  it ;  and  in  conducting  its  foreign 
affairs,  it  was  next  to  impossible  for  him  to  change  its 
course,  without  sacrificing  his  popularity  with  the  leaders 
of  the  party  which  had  placed  him  at  its  head.  The  first 
four  years  of  his  presidential  life  would  expire  in  1813  ; 
and  unfortunately  some  bold  and  ambitious  politicians 
had  set  their  minds  on  war — with  what  expectation  of 
advantage  it  is  difllcult  to  imagine.  Apprehensive  that 
his  nerves  might  shrink  from  such  a  fearful  responsibility, 
it  was  asserted  at  the  time,  and  is  not  known  ever  to 
have  been  contradicted,  or  questioned,  that  he  was  in- 
formed by  the  individuals  alluded  to,  that  unless  he  recom- 
mended a  war  with  Great  Britain,  the  Western  States 
would  not  support  his  re-election.  The  declaration  of 
war  was  accordingly  recommended,  and  proclaim^.  The 
consequence  was,  the  whole  Union  was  agitated  and  dis- 
tressed for  two  years  and  a  half,  by  the  calamities  and  the 
fears  necessarily  attendant  on  a  state  of  war.  The  nation 
incurred  a  debt  of  more  than  a  hundred  millions  of  dol- 
lars, the  payment  of  which,  at  the  end  of  eighteen  years, 
has  scarcely  been  completed,  and  the  country  lost,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  estimate  that  could  be  made,  more  than 
thirty  thousand  lives.  Considering  the  war,  then,  as  in- 
tended to  secure  an  election,  and  not  to  vindicate  the 
rights,  nor  to  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  country, 
it  would  not  be  safe  reasoning  to  conclu(Je,  tliat  merely 
l^ecause  Mr.  Madison  was  not  bred  in  a  camp,  and  did 
npt  like  to  "  look  on  scenes  of  blood  and  carnage,"  that 
he  had  not  nerve  enough  to  prostrate  the  constitution  and 
liberties  of  his  country.  The  facts  which  have  been  ad- 
duced in  this  history  have  shown,  that  when  the  aspect  of 
things  became  darkened,  and  the  war  began  to  assume  a 
more  threatening  and  formidable  appearance  to  the  coun- 
try at  large,  and  of  course  to  his  personal  popularity,  he 
did  not  hesitate  to  recommend  a  series  of  measures,  which, 
h^4  ^^*^y  been  carried  into  effect,  would  have  been  as 


HAKTFORD    CONVENTION.  .       421 

complete  and  fatal  a  triumph-over  the  constitution,  as  could 
have  been  effected  by  a  dispersion,  with  force  and  arms, 
of  the  legislative  houses,  and  shutting  up  the  halls  of  Con- 
gress. Had  Mr.  Giles's  bill  passed  into  a  law,  the  power 
of  accomplishing  these  results  would  have  been  placed  in 
the  hands  of  the  executive.  It  would  be  but  a  poor  an- 
swer to  say  that  he  would  not  have  abused  the  power. 
The  argument  will  carry  but  little  force,  w  hen  it  is  recol- 
lected, that  the  power  which  was  in  his  hands  was  abused  ; 
and  in  one  instance,  the  very  existence  of  the  constitution 
was  placed  in  extreme  jeopardy.  But  the  precedent 
would  have  remained  ;  and  the  first  "Military  Chieftain" 
who  had  been  bred  in  a  camp,  and  was  not  afraid  to 
'•  look  on  blood  and  carnage,",  and  who  had  succeeded  in 
taking  the  reins  of.government  into  his  own  hands,  would 
have  it  in  his  power,  under  its  sanction,  after  leaving 
plunged  the  nation  into  a  war,  to  conquer  and  enslave  his 
country. 

For  the  escape  from  these  evils,  the  United  States  are 
indebted  to  the  firm  and  patriotic  stand  taken  by  the  New 
England  States,  in  defence  of  their  constitutional  rights 
and  privileges.  There  is  very  little  probability,  at  least 
for  half  a  century  to  come,  that  another  such  attempt  will 
be  made  against  their  liberties  and  independence.  That 
probability  is  much  strengthened  by  the  consideration, 
that  the  attempt  which  was  made  during  the  late  war  was 
so  signally  defeated.  Deeply  concerned  as  all  the  indivi- 
dual states  in  fact  were  in  the  result  of  the  controversy 
between  the  New  England  States  and  the  United  States, 
in  1812,  and  during  the  war,  no  particular  class  of  inhabi- 
tants were  so  directly  and  deeply  interested,  as  the  whole 
body  of  militia  throughout  the  Union.  Nothing  saved 
them  from  being  forced,  during  the  late  war,  into  the  ranks 
of  the  regular  army,  but  the  independent  conduct  of  the 
chief  magistrates  of  the  three  New  England  States,  viz. 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island.  The  firm- 


422  HISTORY    OF   THE   &c. 

ness  of  those  public  officers,  approved  and  supported  as 
they  were  by  the  legislatures  of  their  several  jurisdictions, 
checked  the  progress  of  the  national  government  towards 
the  establishment  of  Conscription  and  Impressment,  by 
legislative  acts  wearing  the  forms  of  law.  And  jt  should 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  when  these  efforts  were  made  to 
violate  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  states,  and  of  the 
militia,  the  war  had  ceased  to  be  a  contest  for  the  vindi- 
cation of  any  national  right  whatever. 


APPENDIX 


It  may  not  be  uninteresting,  to  give  the  community  at 
large  some  general  information  respecting  the  characters 
of  the  individuals  who  composed  the  Hartford  Convention. 
For  that  purpose,  the  following  very  brief  sketches  have 
been  prepared. 

George  Cabot  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  and  a 
descendant  of  one  of  the  discoverers  of  a  portion  of  this 
continent.  He  was  a  man  of  strong  powers  of  mind,  ex- 
tensive knowledge,  dignified  manners,  the  strictest  inte- 
grity, and  the  purest  morals.  He  was  a  warm  friend  to 
the  independence  of  his  country  during  the  revolutionary 
contest ;  and  soon  after  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  he  was  appointed  a  senator  in  Con- 
gress from  the  state  of  Massachusetts.  He  was  an  able, 
upright,  judicious,  and  disinterested  statesman,  and 
had  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  the  go- 
vernment, and  the  great  interests  of  the  country.  His 
mind  was  elevated  far  above  the  arts  of  intrigue ;  he  dis- 
dained political  cunning  and  chicanery ;  his  principles  were 
sound  and  pure,  and  his  conduct  disinterested  and  inde- 
pendent. 

For  many  years  previously  to  1814,  he  had  declined  pub- 
lic office,  and  had  taken  no  active  part  in  politics,  until  the 


424  APPENDIX. 

dangers  of  the  country,  and  particularly  those  by  which 
Ne\v-En<^land  was  surroundedj  induced  him  to  consent  to 
attend  the  Convention  at  Hartford.  He  was  unanimously 
chosen  to  preside  in  that  assembly ;  and  throughout  its 
session,  he  performed  the  duties  of  his  office  in  the  most 
acceptable  and  dignified  manner,  fiis  life  was  prolonged 
several  years  after  the  close  of  the  war ;  and  he  maintain- 
ed the  same  high  reputation  that  he  had  previously  acquir- 
ed to  the  end  of  his  days,  enjoying  the  universal  esteem 
and  resfiect  of  his  friends,  and  of  the  community  where 
he  had  passed  a  long  and  virtuous  life.  Few  men  under- 
stood more  thoroughly  the  principles  of  the  government, 
or  the  important  interests  of  the  country  ;  and  no  man  was 
ever  more  divested  of  selfishness,  in  his  exertions  to 
promote  its  welfare. 

Nathan  Dane  was  bred  to  the  bar,  and  practised  law 
for  many  years  with  a  high  reputation  for  learning,  integ- 
rity, and  talents.  He  was  a  firm  friend  to  his  country 
during  the  revolutionary  war,  and  was  a  member  of  Con- 
gress from  Massachusetts,  under  the  confederation,  where 
he  performed  eminent  services, — particularly  in  procuring 
the  insertion  of  a  provision  in  the  ordinance  establishing 
territorial  governments  over  the  territories  northwest  of 
the  Ohio  river,  which  forever  excluded  slavery  from  those 
regions.  He  was  also  for  many  years  a  member  of  the 
state  legislature;  and  at  all  times,  through  a  long  and  use- 
ful life,  enjoyed  extensively  the  confidence  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  in  the  town,  county,  and  state  where  he  resides. 
He  is  still  living ;  and  though  at  a  very  advanced  age,  is 
still  engaged  in  rendering  important  services  to  the  com- 
munity, by  the  publication  of  valuable  works  on  subjects 
of  an  interesting  nature,  and  by  distributing  with  a  liberal 
hand  the  fruits  of  his  own  industry  and  talents,  in  support 
of  the  public  institutions  of  the  state. 


APPENDIX.  425 

William  Prescott  was  a  son  of  Colonel  Prescott,  so 
distinguished  in  the  annals  of  his  country  for  heroic  bra- 
very and  conduct, — especially  at  the  battle  of  Bunker's 
Hill,  on  the  17th  of  June,  1775, — for  devoted  patriotism, 
and  an  ardent  zeal  for  the  independence  of  his  native  land. 
Mr.  Prescott  was  educated  for  the  bar,  and  settled  early  in 
life  in  the  town  of  Salem,  in  the  county  of  Essex.  Here  he 
rose  to*  great  distinction  as  a  learned  counsellor,  and  an 
able  advocate.  He  then  removed  to  Boston,  where  he 
attained  to  great  eminence  as  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
members  of  the  profession.  He  has  been  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  of  the  senate  of  the 
state  legislature,  and  was  sure  of  an  election  whenever 
he  would  consent  to  be  a  candidate.  No  man  ever  had  a 
higher  reputation  for  strict  integrity,  personal  worth,  or 
public  virtue;  and  very  few  men  of  his  elevated  standing 
for  talents,  or  moral  worth,  were  more  entirely  free  from 
every  feeling  of  ambition^  or  the  desire  of  official  distinc- 
tion or  influence. 

Harrison  Gray  Otis  was  born  at  Boston,  and  is  a 
branch  of  the  same  family  with  James  Otis,  one  of  the 
most  active  and  eloquent  patriots  of  that  city,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  revolution.  He  was  bred  to  the  bar,  and 
was  distinguished  for  his  talents  and  eloquence  in  his  pro- 
fession. He  came  young  into  public  life  ;  has  been  a  re- 
presentative to  congress,  often  a  member  of  the  legislature 
of  the  state,  a  senator  to  congress,  and  finally  mayor  of 
the  city.  In  all  these  stations,  he  was  highly  respected  and 
esteemed  as  an  eloquent  speaker,  an  able  statesman,  and 
an  upright  politician. 

Few  individuals  have  been  placed  more  frequently  in 
conspicuous  stations  before  the  public  than  this  gentleman. 
Possessed  of  fine  talents,  of  captivating  oratory,  and  persua- 
sive eloquence,  he  has  always  been  able  to  command  the  re- 
spect, and  to  a  great  extent  the  esteem  of  his  political  op- 

54 


426  APPENDIX. 

ponents ;  while  he  has  possessed  in  an  eminent  degree 
the  attachment  and  the  confidence  of  his  political  friends 
and  associates. 

Timothy  Bigelow  was  a  highly  respectable  lawyer,, 
esteemed  for  his  integrity  in  his  professional  pursuits ; 
was  for  many  years  elected  a  member  of  the  state  legisla- 
ture, and  for  nearly  an  equal  period  was  annually  chosen 
speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives  ;  and  having  de- 
clined a  further  election  to  that  office,  was  appointed  a 
member  of  the  executive  council  of  .the  state.  Few  men 
have  more  fully  possessed  the  confidence  of  their  constitu- 
ents than  Mr.  Bigelow. 

Joshua  Thomas  held  the  office  of  judge  of  probate  in 
the  county  of  Plymouth,  in  Massachusetts,  the  duties  of 
which  he  executed  for  many  years  with  much  reputation, 
enjoying  the  confidence  of  the  community  in  an  uncom- 
mon degree.  This  office  rendered  him  inelegible  to  the 
legislature,  otherwise  there  is  no  doubt  he  would  have  been 
elected  to  a  seat  in  one  house  or  the  other,  as  often  as  he 
would  have  consented  to  become  a  candidate  for  popular 
favour. 

Joseph  Lyman  was  by  profession  a  lawyer,  and  pur- 
sued the  practice  for  many  years  with  a  respectable  cha- 
racter for  integrity  and  talents.  For  a  very  considerable 
period  he  has  held  the  office  of  sherifi*  of  the  county  to 
which  he  belongs,  which  renders  him  ineligible  to  a  seat 
in  the  legislature.  He  was  elected  a  member  of  the  con- 
vention, which  was  held  a  number  of  years  since,  for  the 
purpose  of  suggesting  amendments  to  the  state  constitu- 
tion. He  has  always  enjoyed  the  respect  and  confidence 
of  the  community,  particularly  that  part  of  it  where  he  has 
always  resided,  and  still  is  esteemed  for  his  public  and 
private  virtues. 


APPENDIX. 


427 


George  Bliss  was  an  eminent  lawyer,  distinguished 
in  the  profession  for  extensive  learning,  unwearied  indus- 
try, uncommon  intelligence,  the  strictest  integrity,  and  the 
most  unshaken  independence  both  of  principle  and  of  con- 
4iuct.  In  private  life  he  possessed  a  most  estimable  and 
exemplary  character.  He  was  repeatedly  elected  to  the 
state  legislature,  and  was  often  a  member  of  the  execu- 
tive council  of  the  state.  No  man  ever  passed  through 
life  with  a  fairer  reputation  for  integrity,  or  in  a  more  en- 
tire possession  of  the  confidence  of  the  community  in  which 
he  resided. 

Daniel  Waldo  is  an  inhabitant  of  Worcester,  in  the 
state  of  Massachusetts,  where  he  was  early  in  life  estab- 
lished as  a  merchant.  In  all  the  business  and  intercourse 
of  life,  he  has  maintained  a  most  respectable  and  irre- 
proachable character.  He  has  been  a  member  of  the  state 
senate,  and  could  always  be  elected  when  he  would  suffer 
himself  to  be  named  as  a  candidate  for  that  office.  Afflu- 
43nt  in  his  circumstances,  he  has  usually  found  sufficient 
■employment  in  superintending  his  private  affairs.  Being 
of  an  unambitious  disposition,  he  has,  to  a  great  extent, 
left  the  political  concerns  of  the  country  to  others,  con- 
tenting himself  with  the  quiet  pursuits  and  occupations  of 
private  life,  and  in  doing  good  to  his  fellow  men. 

Samuel  Sumner  Wilde  was  bred  to  the  bar,  where 
he  maintained  a  highly  respectable  character  for  learning, 
talents,  and  integrity.  No  better  evidence  of  his  high 
standing  in  the  profession  could  be  given,  than  his  appoint- 
ment to  a  seat  on  the  bench  of  the  supreme  court  of  Mas- 
sachusetts— a  court  which  has  always  ranked  among  the 
most  distinguished  in  oar  country,  and  which  within  a  few 
years  previously  had  been  ornamented  by  a  Parsons,  a 
Strong,  a  Sedgwick,  a  Sewall,  and  other  jurists  of  an  em- 
inent character.     This   place   Mr.  Wilde  has   filled    for 


428  APPENDIX. 

many  years,  with  reputation  to  himself,  and  with  the  full 
approliation  of  the  community. 

HoDiJAH  Baylies  was  an  officer  of  much  merit  in  the 
revolutionary  army,  and  served  with  reputation  until  the 
establishment  of  his  country's  independence.  For  many 
years  he  has  held  the  office  of  judge  of  probate,  in  the 
county  in  which  he  resided,  which  disqualified  him  for  le- 
gislative employment,  otherwise  from  his  well  established 
character  for  sound  understanding,  solid  talents,  and  un- 
impeachable integrity,  he  would  doubtless  have  been  often 
selected  by  his  fellow  citizens  for  places  of  trust  and  im- 
portance. 

Stephen  Longfellow,  Jun.  was  bred  to  the  bar,  and 
resided  in  the  city  of  Portland,  now  in  the  state  of  Maine. 
As  a  lawyer,  he  has  been  considered  as  at  the  head  of  his 
profession,  for  talents  and  integrity.  He  has  also  been 
elected  to  the  house  of  representatives  of  the  United 
States,  where  his  talents  were  fully  displayed,  the  respec- 
tability of  his  character  acknowledged,  and  his  disinterest- 
edness and  integrity  duly  appreciated. 

Chaunce^y  Goodrich  was  educated  for  the  bar,  and 
was  for  many  years  a  practitioner  of  the  highest  respec- 
tability, for  learning,  talents,  and  integrity.  He  was  re- 
peatedly a  member  of  the  legislature  of  Connecticut,  and 
held  successively  a  scat  in  both  of  its  branches.  Early  in 
life  he  was  several  times  elected  a  member  of  the  house 
of  representatives  of  the  United  States,  and  subsequently 
was  appointed  a  senator  in  congress.  From  the  latter 
station  he  was  chosen  Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  state — 
an  office  which  he  held  till  his  death.  Karely  has  any 
individual  passed  through  so  many  scenes  in  public  life 
with  a  higher  reputation,  and  a  more  unimpeachable  cha- 
racter.    Thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  public  concerns, 


APPENDIX.  429 

both  of  the  state  to  which  he  belonged,  and  of  the  United 
States,  no  statesman  ever  pursued  with  a  more  single 
eye  the  interests  of  his  country.  Unshaken  in  his  princi- 
ples, cool  and  determined  in  his  conduct,  nothing  could  in- 
duce him  to  deviate  a  hair's-breadth  from  the  path  of  rec- 
titude, or  swerve  in  the  slightest  degree  from  the  most 
strict  integrity  of  purpose.  On  all  occasions,  even  during 
the  highest  strife  of  party  spirit,  and  in  the  most  animat- 
ing and  exciting  moments  of  debate,  he  never  lost  sight 
of  the  most  rigid  decorum  of  manners  ;  and  his  political  op 
ponents  involuntarily  yielded  him  their  esteem  and  respect. 

John  Treadwell,  in  private  life,  was  a  model  of  per- 
sonal worth,  and  in  public,  was  universally  esteemed  for 
his  sound  understanding,  unquestionable  integrity,  and 
sterling  worth.  He  spent  a  great  part  of  his  life  in  the 
service  of  the  public — having  filled  successively  the  places 
of  representative  and  councillor  in  the  state  legislature, 
and  the  offices  of  lieutenant-governor  and  governor  of 
the  state.  He  was  also  for  a  long  period  a  judge  of  the 
court  of  common  pleas,  in  the  county  in  which  he  resided, 
and  for  a  good  many  years  was  the  presiding  judge  of  that 
tribunal.  In  all  the  offices  which  he  filled,  and  in  all  the 
public  services  which  he  performed,  his  life  passed  with- 
out a  stain.  He  was  a  whig  in  the  revolution,  a  patriot 
of  the  Washington  school  in  politics,  a  plain  republican  in 
his  principles  and  manners,  conscientiously  upright  in  all 
his  intercourse  with  his  fellow  men,  and  he  possessed,  in 
a  very  extensive  degree,  the  respect  and  confidence  of  the 
great  body  of  the  community  in  whose  service  he  spent 
his  days. 

James  Hillhouse.  Very  few  men  in  the  United 
States  have  been  more  extensively  known  in  public  life 
than  this  gentleman.  He  was  for  many  years  a  practising 
lawyer  of  celebrity,  a  member  of  the  state  legislature,  and 


430  APPENDIX. 

for  nearly  twenty  years  connected  with  the  national  go- 
vernment, either  as  a  representative,  or  a  senator  in  Con- 
gress. In  both  those  stations  his  character  stood  high  for 
integrity,  firmness,  and  independence.  During  the  revo- 
lutionary war  he  fought  bravely  for  his  country;  and  in 
the  pursuit  of  peace,  he  was  distinguished  for  activity,  in- 
telligence, and  public  spirit.  Few  men  ever  possessed 
greater  energy  of  character — no  man  ever  excelled  him 
in  industry  and  perseverance,  in  whatever  pursuit  and 
employment  he  might  be  engaged. 

Zephaniah  Swift  was  a  lawyer,  distinguished  for 
learning  and  talents.  For  many  years  he  was  actively 
and  extensively  engaged  in  the  duties  of  his  profession ; 
during  which  he  was  successively  a  member  of  the  state  le- 
gislature, speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives,  and  a 
representative  in  congress.  Subsequently  he  was  a  judge, 
and  for  a  number  of  years  chief  judge  of  the  supreme 
court  of  the  state,  where  he  acquired  a  high  reputation 
for  learning,  talents,  integrity,  and  independence. 

Nathaniel  Smith  was  one  of  the  most  extraordinary 
men  of  his  time.  With  few  advantages  of  early  educa- 
tion, he  became  a  student  of  law  ;  and  after  a  regular  pe- 
riod of  preparation  was  admitted  to  the  bar.  By  the 
force  of  great  native  powers  of  mind,  and  a  most  com- 
manding forensic  eloquence,  he  soon  rose  to  the  head  of 
the  profession,  and  was  for  a  number  of  years  considered 
as  one  of  the  most  distinguished  lawyers  and  advocates  in 
the  state.  He  was  elected  a  member  of  the  house  of 
representatives  of  the  United  States  ;  and  afterwards, 
for  a  number  of  years,  was  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  state.  In  every  situation  in  which  he  was  called  to 
act,  the  extraordinary  talents  with  which  he  was  endued 
were  manifest ;  whilst  his  whole  life  was  marked  for  pu- 
rity of  morals,  strict  integrity,  and  a  devoted  attachment 


APPENDIX.  431 

to  the  interests  of  the  state  to  which  he  belonged,  and  to 
the  welfare  of  the  United  States. 

Calvin  Goddard  was  born  in  Massachusetts,  but  was 
educated  for  the  bar  in  Connecticut,  where  he  first  settled 
in  the  practice  of  law,  and  almost  immediately  rose  to 
eminence  in  the  profession.  Possessed  of  distinguished 
talents,  his  practice  soon  became  extensive,  when  at  an 
early  period  he  was  elected  a  member  of  the  house  of 
representatives  of  tha  United  States,  where  he  served 
with  much  reputation  for  four  successive  years.  At  the 
end  of  that  time  he  declined  a  third  election.  Upon  leaving 
Congress  he  resumed  the  practice  of  law,  which  he  followed 
with  great  success  for  a  number  of  years.  He  was  repeat- 
edly elected  to  the  state  legislature,  and  for  a  number  of 
years  was  an  active  and  influential  member  of  the  coun- 
cil, the  higher  branch  of  that  body.  Whilst  a  member  of 
that  house,  he  was  appointed  a  judge  of  the  supreme 
court  of  the  state,  and  continued  on  the  bench  until  the 
formation  of  the  new  state  constitution,  when  he  returned 
to  the  bar,  and  has  been  engaged  till  the  present  time  in 
the  business  of  his  original  profession,  with  a  high  charac- 
ter for  learning,  talents,  and  integrity. 

Roger  Minot  Sherman  was  bred  to  the  bar ;  and  im- 
mediately upon  his  admission  to  practice  became  distin- 
guished for  abilities  of  a  superior  order.  He  has  been 
repeatedly  elected  to  the  state  legislature,  and  for  a  num- 
ber of  years  was  a  member  of  the  council.  Few  men  in 
the  profession  in  any  part  of  the  country  have  a  higher 
reputation,  or  possess  forensic  talents  of  a  more  distin- 
guished description.  Such  has  been  his  reputation  for 
purity  of  morals,  strict  professional  and  personal  integrity, 
and  for  the  unimpeachableness  of  his  character,  that  he 
has  always  possessed  the  confidence  of  the  community, 


432  APPENDIX. 

all  parties  having  paid  him  the  tribute  of  their  esteem  and 
respect. 

Daniel  Lyman  was  a  native  of  Connecticut.  Early  in 
the  revolutionary  war  he  joined  the  army,  and  served  till 
the  establishment  of  independence  by  the  peace  of  1783. 
He  rose  to  the  rank  of  major,  and  sustained  a  high  repu- 
tation for  military  talents  and  bravery.  After  the  peace 
he  settled  in  the  practice  of  law  in  Rhode  Island,  where 
he  became  distinguished  for  integrity  and  talents  in  the 
profession,  and  was  eventually  appointed  Chief-Justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state  ;  a  place  that  he  filled  for 
a  number  of  years  with  much  reputation,  and  to  the  en- 
tire satisfaction  of  the  community  whose  laws  he  was 
called  to  administer. 

Samuel  Ward  was  the  son  of  Governor  Ward  of  Rhode 
Island.  He  received  his  education  at  the  university  of 
that  state;  and  in  the  year  1774  joined  the  army  of  the 
United  States,  having  received  the  commission  of  captain 
at  eighteen  years.  In  1775  he  joined  General  Arnold  on 
his  expedition  against  Quebec,  and  went  with  him  on  that 
most  severe  and  dangerous  enterprize;  and  after  enduring 
hardships  almost  inconceivable,  he  arrived  before  Quebec 
in  December  of  that  year.  In  the  subsequent  attack  up- 
on that  city  he  was  made  a  prisoner ;  but  afterwards  was 
exchanged,  and  returned  to  his  country,  and  served  in  the 
army,  having  been  promoted  to  the  rank  of  colonel,  till 
peace  was  restored,  and  our  independence  was  acknow- 
ledged. He  afterwards  became  engaged  in  trade,  and 
visited  the  East  Indies  and  Europe. 

In  the  year  1786,  Colonel  Ward  was  elected,  with  Col- 
onel Bowen,  a  delegate  to  the  convention,  which  met  at 
Annapolis,  in  Maryland,  in  September  of  that  year,  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  into  consideration  the  trade  and  com- 
merce of  the  United  States,  and  to  endeavour  to  agree  on 


APPENDIX.  433 

some  uniform  system  in  their  commercial  intercourse. 
Colonel  Ward  proceeded  as  far  as  Philadelphia,  where  he 
ascertained  that  the  convention  had  adjourned. 

In  private  life  Colonel  Ward  sustained  a  most  estimable 
character  ;  and  as  a  soldier  and  patriot,  his  reputation  was 
without  a  stain. 

Benjamin  Hazard  was  a  native  of  Rhode  Island,  and 
was  educated  to  the  bar.  In  the  profession,  he  has  long 
ranked  among  the  most  respectable  practitioners  in  the 
state  for  integrity  aud  talents.  He  has  for  many  years 
been  elected  by  his  fellow-citizens  of  Newport  to  a  seat  in 
the  state  legislature,  and  is  justly  considered  as  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  members  of  that  body.  His  private  worth 
is  universally  acknowledged,  and  he  is  justly  considered 
as  one  of  the  most  respectable  citizens  of  his  native  state. 

Edward  Manton  was  a  native  of  Rhode  Island. 
He  was  of  an  unambitious  disposition,  and  rarely  mingled 
in  the  political  discussions  and  agitations.  His  principles 
were  sound,  stable,  and  independent — such  as  were  com- 
mon to  the  friends  of  the  Union  and  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  His  character  as  a  man  and  a  patriot 
was  marked  by  sterling  integrity,  strict  probity,  and  great 
moral  worth  ;  and  he  enjoyed  the  respect  and  confidence 
of  the  community  in  a  degree  proportioned  to  his  modest 
and  unobtrusive  merit. 

Benjamin  West  was  a  native  of  New-Hampshire,  and 
was  bred  to  the  bar.  He  practised  for  many  years  with 
distinguished  reputation,  and  was  considered  as  at  the 
head  of  the  profession  in  that  state.  His  integrity  was 
universally  admitted,  and  his  talents  as  generally  acknow- 
ledged. In  his  intercourse  with  the  community  he  was 
greatly  esteemed;  and  in  the  private  relations  of  life  his 
character  was  in  a  high  degree  estimable  and  interestiDg. 

55 


434  APPENDIX, 

Mills  Olcott  was  a  native  of  New-Hampshire,  and 
a  son  of  the  Hon.  Chief-Justice  Olcott  of  that  state.  He 
is  himself  a  lawyer  of  respectable  talents  and  character, 
and  much  esteemed  for  his  private  worth,  his  unimpeach- 
able integrity,  and  estimable  character.  It  is  understood 
that  he  has  for  a  good  many  years  withdrawn  from  ])oliti- 
cal  life,  enjoying  in  retirement  the  advantages  of  social 
iiJtercourse,  and  the  unobtrusive  round  of  domestic  tran- 
quility and  happiness. 

William  Hall,  Jun.  was  an  inhabitant  of  Vermont, 
and  his  business  that  of  a  merchant.  In  the  midst  of  ex- 
tensive concerns  he  found  leisure  to  devote  his  attention 
occasionally  to  public  affairs.  He  was  frequently  a  member 
of  the  state  legislature ;  and  might  have  been  much  more 
extensively  emj)loyed  in  the  service  of  his  fellow  citizens, 
if  he  had  been  disposed  to  pursue  the  life  of  a  politician.. 
No  man  ever  enjoyed  a  reputation  more  entirely  free  from 
all  reproach  than  this  gentleman.  He  was  universally 
esteemed  an^  respected  by  all  good  men,  who  had  the  op- 
portunity to  become  acquainted  with  his  character,  man- 
ners, and  moral  excellence* 


It  may  not  be  amiss  to  compare  the  conduct  of  the  New- 
England  States  during  the  war  of  1812,  with  that  of  ano- 
ther state,  at  a  much  later  period.  It  is  well  known,  that 
a  portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  South  Carolina  were,  for  a 
considerable  time,  greatly  excited  on  the  subject  of  what 
has  been  familiarly  called  the  "  tariff  policy  "  of  the  national 
government.  That  policy  had  for  its  object  the  encourage- 
ment and  protection  of  domestic  manufactures.  For  this 
purpose  laws  were  passed  laying  heavy  duties  upon  cer- 
tain kinds  of  foreign  manufactures,  with  the  view  of  ena- 


APPENDIX.  435 

bling  American  citizens  to  foster  and  support  their  own  in- 
dustry. For  a  number  of  years  very  little  complaint  of 
injustice,  or  even  of  hardship,  in  the  operation  of  the  sys. 
tern,  was  heard  from  any  quarter.  At  length,  however,  it 
became  the  subject  of  clamour  among  politicians,  who  re- 
sided in  those  parts  of  the  country  where  manufacturing 
is  not  pursued,  and  where,  from  the  peculiar  situation  and 
circumstances  of  the  community,  there  is  very  little  rea- 
son to  expect  that  the  industry  of  the  labouring  class  of 
the  inhabitants  will  take  that  direction.  By  the  unwearied 
efforts  of  some  of  their  influential  citizens,  and  particularly 
of  those  whose  attention  was  devoted  to  their  political  con- 
cerns, a  great  degree  of  warmth  was  enkindled,  loud  and 
threatening  complaints  were  lettered,  the  laws  laying  du- 
ties on  merchandise  for  the  encouragement  of  American 
industry  were  openly  denounced  as  unconstitutional,  and 
therefore  not  obligatory  upon  the  people,  and  threats  of 
open  and  direct  opposition  to  the  execution  of  the  laws  al- 
luded to  were  heard  from  every  quarter.  At  the  same 
time,  the  constitutional  authority  of  the  national  judiciary 
to  determine  questions  of  this  descrif)tion  was  denied,  the 
power  of  the  individual  slates  to  decide,  each  for  itself^ 
was  avowed,  and  the  right  of  seceding  from  the  Union,  as 
the  necessary  consequence  of  these  doctrines,  was  claimed 
and  vindicated. 

Among  the  distinguished  leaders  in  this  crusade  against 
the  Union  and  constitution  of  the  United  States,  was  Ro- 
bert Y.  Hayne,  then  a  senator  from  South  Carolina  in  the 
congress  of  the  United  States,  and  now  governor  of  that 
state.  In  the  year  1830,  and  whilst  he  was  a  member  of 
the  senate,  the  celebrated  debate  on  the  nominal  subject 
of  the  public  lands  occurred  in  that  body.  This  gentle- 
man took  an  active  and  decided  part  in  that  debate  ;  and 
in  two  successive  speeches,  put  forth  the  whole  strength 
of  his  talents,  and  the  full  powers  of  his  eloquence.  In 
the  course  of  one  of  those  speeches  he  alluded.  VLtnong  & 


436  APPENDIX. 

miiltitufle  of  other  subjects,  to  that  of  the  Hartford  Con* 
vention  ;  and  after  depicting  the  calamities  of  the  country, 
at  the  time  the  Convention  assembled,  in  glowing  colours, 
he  represented  the  conduct  of  the  eastern  states,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  war,  in  as  reprehensible  a  light  as  the  force  of 
language  would  enable  him.  For  the  facts  to  support  his 
statements,  he  relied  principally  upon  a  book  entitled 
*'  The  Olive  Branch,''^  published  at  a  time  not  fcir  distant 
from  the  meeting  of  the  Convention — a  work  of  almost 
all  others  intended  to  subserve  party  purposes,  the  least 
entitled  to  credit.  On  such  an  authority,  he  proceeded  in  a 
strain  of  great  vehemence  to  make  the  following  remarks  : 

"  As  soon  as  the  public  mind  was  sufficiently  prepared 
for  the  measure,  the  celebi^ted  Hartford  Convention  was 
got  up;  not  as  the  act  of  a  few  unauthorized  individuals, 
but  by  authority  of  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts;  and 
as  has  been  shown  by  the  able  historian  of  that  Conven- 
tion, in  accordance  with  the  views  and  wishes  of  the  party 
of  which  it  was  the  organ.  Now,  sir,  I  do  not  desire  to 
call  in  question  the  motives  of  the  gentlemen  who  composed 
that  assembly  ;  I  knew  many  of  them  to  be  in  private  life 
accomplished  and  honourable  men,  and  I  doubt  not  there 
were  some  among  them  who  did  not  perceive  the  dange- 
rous tendency  of  their  proceedings.  I  will  even  go  further, 
and  say,  that  if  the  authors  of  the  Hartford  Convention 
believed,  that  '  gross,  deliberate,  and  palpable  violations 
of  the  constitution'  had  taken  place,  utterly  destructive  of 
their  rights  and  interests,  I  should  be  the  last  man  to  deny 
their  right  to  resort  to  any  constitutional  measures  for  re- 
dress. But,  sir,  in  any  view  of  the  case,  the  time  when, 
and  the  circumstances  under  which  that  Convention  as- 
sembled, as  well  as  the  measures  recommended,  render 
their  conduct,  in  my  opinion,  wholly  indefensible. 

"  Let  us  contemplate,  for  a  moment,  the  spectacle  then 
exhibited  to  the  view  of  the  world.  I  will  not  go  over  the 
disasters  of  the  war,  nor  describe  the  difficulties  in  which 


APPENDIX.  43r 

the  government  was  involved.  It  will  be  recollected,  that 
its  credit  was  nearly  gone,  Washington  had  fallen,  the 
whole  coast  was  blockaded,  and  an  immense  force  collect- 
ed in  the  West  Indies,  was  about  to  make  a  descent,  which 
it  was  supposed  we  had  no  means  of  resisting.  In  this 
awful  state  of  our  public  affairs,  when  the  government 
seemed  to  be  almost  tottering  on  its  base,  when  Great 
Britain,  relieved  from  al!  her  other  enemies,  had  proclaim- 
ed her  purpose  of  '  reducing  us  to  unconditional  submis- 
sion'— we  beheld  the  peace  party  in  New-England  (in  the 
language  of  the  work  [The  Olive  Branch]  before  us) 
pursuing  a  course  calculated  to  do  more  injury  to  their 
country,  and  to  render  England  more  effective  service 
than  all  her  armies.  Those  who  could  not  find  it  in  their 
hearts  to  rejoice  at  our  victories,  sang  *  Te  Deum'  at  the 
King's  chapel  in  Boston  at  the  restoration  of  the  Bour- 
bons. Those  who  would  not  consent  to  illuminate  their 
dwellings  for  the  capture  of  the  Guerriere,  could  give  visi- 
ble tokens  of  their  joy  at  the  fall  of  Detroit.  The  *  bea- 
con fires'  of  their  hills  were  lighted  up,  not  for  the  encou- 
ragement of  their  friends,  but  as  signals  to  the  enemy  ; 
and  in  the  gloomy  hours  of  midnight  the  very  lights  burn- 
ed blue.  Such  were  the  dark  and  portentous  signs  of  the 
times  which  ushered  into  being  the  renowned  Hartford 
Convention.  That  Convention  met,  and  from  their  pro- 
ceedings it  appears  that  their  chief  object  was  to  keep 
back  the  men  and  money  of  New-England  from  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Union,  and  to  effect  radical  changes  in  the  go- 
vernment— changes  that  can  never  be  effected  without  a 
dissolution  of  the  Union." 

In  adverting  to  Mr.  Hayne's  speech  on  this  occasion, 
the  object  has  not  been  to  examine  into  the  justice  of  his 
remarks,  the  correctness  of  his  statements,  or  the  sound- 
ness of  his  conclusions.  The  subject  has  been  noticed  for 
a  very  different  purpose.  It  is  to  give  that  gentleman,  and 
the  state  of  South  Carolina,  an  opportunity  to  view  them- 


438  APPENDIX. 

selves  in  their  own  mirror.  The  ground  on  which  the 
Hartford  Convention  stood,  is  to  be  found  in  the  preceding 
pages  of  this  work.  If  the  facts  and  evidence  which  have 
been  adduced  do  not  justify  the  New-England  States  in 
convening  that  assembly,  and  in  the  fullest  manner  war- 
rant their  proceedings,  and  the  result  of  their  deliberations 
and  labours,  they  will  doul)tless  be  condemned.  But  if, 
in  any  of  these  particulars,  they  suffer  in  a  comparison  with 
the  state  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  measures  more  recently 
adopted  by  the  latter  in  opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  it  will  certainly  excite  no  small  degree  of  surprise. 

In  South  Carolina,  though  for  a  few  years  past,  there 
have  been  great  complaints  of  oppression  arising  from  the 
operation  of  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States,  yet  the 
actual  degree  of  suffering  could  not  be  easily  and  precise- 
ly ascertained.  The  real  ground  of  complaint  appeared  to 
be  against  the  acts  of  Congress  laying  what  are  called  pro- 
tective duties  upon  foreign  merchandise,  for  the  purpose 
of  encouraging  and  protecting  domestic  mainifactures. 
The  constitutional  authority  to  lay  duties  of  this  descrip- 
tion w^as  denied  by  the  politicians  of  that  state ;  and  ha- 
ving failed  after  various  attempts  in  Congress  to  obtain 
a  repeal  of  those  acts,  the  state  determined  to  take  the 
matter  into  their  own  hands,  and  force  the  national  go- 
vernment to  yield  to  their  demands,  or  to  secede  from  the 
Union,  and  establish  an  independent  government.  Ac- 
cordingly the  legislature  of  the  state  passed  an  act,  calling 
upon  the  people  to  elect  delegates  to  a  Convention,  to  take 
the  subject  into  consideration,  and  provide  a  remedy  for 
the  evils  which  they  experienced.  Under  the  authority 
of  this  act  delegates  were  chosen,  and  the  Convention 
assembled  ;  and  after  due  deliberation,  they  adopted  the 
following  ordinance  : — 

*'  An  ordinance  to  nullify  certain  acts  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  purporting  to  be  the  laws  laying  duties 
and  imposts  on  the  importation  of  foreign  commodities. 


APPENDIX.  439 

"  Whereas  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  by  va- 
rious acts  purporting  to  be  acts  laying  duties  and  imposts 
on  foreign  imports,  but  in  reality  intended  for  the  protec- 
tion of  domestic  manufactures,  and  the  giving  of  bounties 
to  classes  and  individuals  engaged  in  particular  employ- 
ment, at  the  expense  and  to  the  injury  and  oppression  of 
Other  classes  and  individuals,  and  by  whoUy  exempting 
from  taxation  certain  foreign  commodities,  such  as  are  not 
produced  or  manufactured  in  the  United  States,  to  afford 
^  pretext  for  imposing  higher  and  excessive  duties  on  ar- 
ticles similar  to  those  intended  to  be  protected,  hath  ex- 
ceeded its  just  powers  under  the  constitution,  which  con- 
fers on  it  no  authority  to  afford  such  protection,  and  hath 
violated  the  true  meaning  and  intent  of  the  constitution, 
which  provides  for  equality  in  imposing  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation upon  the  several  states  and  portions  of  the  confede- 
racy. And  whereas  the  said  Congress,  exceeding  its  just 
power  to  impose  taxes  and  collect  revenue  for  the  purpose 
of  effecting  and  accomplishing,  hath  raised  and  collected 
unnecessary  revenues,  for  objects  unauthorised  by  the  con- 
stitution. 

"  We,  therefore,  the  people  of  the  State  of  South  Caro- 
lina in  convention  assembled,  do  declare  and  ordain,  and  it 
is  hereby  declared  and  ordained,  that  the  several  acts  and 
parts  ofactsofthe  Congress  of  the  United  States,  purporting 
to  be  laws  for  the  imposing  of  duties  and  imposts  on  the  im- 
portations of  the  United  States,  and  more  especially  an 
act  entitled  *An  act  in  alteration  of  the  several  acts  im- 
posing duties  on  imports,'  approved  on  the  nineteenth  day 
of  May,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-eio^ht, 
and  also  an  act  entitled  'an  act  to  alter  and  amend  the 
several  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports,'  approved  on  the 
fourteenth  day  of  July,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
thirty-two,  are  unauthorised  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  violate  the  true  meaning  thereof,  and 
are  null  and  void,  and  no  law,  not  binding  upon  this  state, 


440  APPENDIX. 

its  officers  or  citizens;  and  all  promises,  contracts,  and 
obligations,  made  or  entered  into,  with  the  purpose  to  se- 
cure the  duties  imposed  by  said  acts,  and  all  judicial  pro- 
ceedings which  shall  be  hereafter  had  in  affirmance  thereof, 
are,  and  shall  be,  held  utterly  null  and  void. 

"And  it  is  further  ordained,  that  it  shall  not  be  lawful 
for  any  of  tl^  constituted  authorities,  whether  of  this  state 
or  of  the  United  States,  to  enforce  the  payment  of  duties 
imposed  by  the  said  acts  within  the  limits  of  this  state; 
but  that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  adopt 
such  acts  as  may  be  necessary  to  give  full  effect  to  this 
ordinance,  and  to  prevent  the  enforcement  and  arrest  the 
operation  of  the  said  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  within  the  limits  of  this  state, 
from  and  after  the  first  day  of  February  next,  and  the  duty 
of  all  other  constituted  authorities,  and  of  all  persons  re- 
siding or  being  within  the  limits  of  this  state,  and  they  are 
hereby  required  and  enjoined  to  obey  and  give  effect  to  this 
ordinance,  and  such  acts  and  measures  of  the  legislature 
as  may  be  passed  or  adopted  in  obedience  thereto. 

*'And  it  is  further  ordained,  that  in  no  case  of  law  or 
equity,  decided  in  the  courts  of  this  state,  wherein  shall 
be  drawn  in  question  the  authority  of  this  ordinance,  or 
the  validity  of  such  act  or  acts  of  the  legislature  as  may  be 
passed  for  the  purpose  of  giving  effect  thereto,  or  the  va- 
lidity of  the  aforesaid  acts  of  Congress,  imposing  duties, 
shall  any  appeal  be  taken,  or  allowed,  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  nor  shall  any  copy  of  the  re- 
cord be  permitted  or  allowed  for  that  purpose;  and  if  any 
such  appeal  shall  be  attempted  to  be  taken,  the  courts  of 
this  state  shall  proceed  to  execute  and  enforce  their  judg- 
ments, according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  the  state, 
without  reference  to  such  attempted  appeal ;  and  the  per- 
sons attempting  to  take  such  appeal  may  be  dealt  with  for 
a  contempt  of  the  court. 

'*  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  all  persons  now  hold- 


APPENDIX.  441 

ing  any  office  of  honor,  profit,  or  trust,  civil  or  military, 
under  this  state,  shall  within  such  time  as  the  legislature 
may  prescribe,  take,  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature 
may  direct,  an  oath  well  and  truly  to  obey,  execute,  and 
enforce  this  ordinance,  and  such  act  or  acts  of  the  legisla- 
ture as  may  be  passed  in  pursuance  thereof,  according  to 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  same ;  and  on  the  ne- 
glect or  omission  of  any  such  person  or  persons  so  to  do, 
his  or  their  office  or  offices  shall  be  forthwith  vacated,  and 
shall  be  filled  up,  as  if  such  person  or  persons  were  dead, 
or  had  resigned ;  and  no  person  hereafter  elected  to  any 
office  of  honour,  profit,  or  trust,  civil  or  military,  shall,  un- 
til the  legislature  shall  otherwise  provide  and  direct,  enter 
on  the  execution  of  his  office,  or  be  in  any  respect  compe- 
tent to  discharge  the  duties  thereof,  until  he  shall  in  like 
manner  have  taken  a  similar  oath  ;  and  no  juror  shall  be 
impannelled  in  any  of  the  courts  of  this  state,  in  any  cause 
in  which  shall  be  in  question  this  ordinance,  or  any  act  of 
the  legislature  passed  in  pursuance  thereof,  unless  he  shall 
first,  in  addition  to  the  usual  oath,  have  taken  an  oath 
that  he  will  well  and  truly  obey,  execute,  and  enforce  this 
ordinance,  and  such  act  or  acts  of  the  legislature  as  may 
be  passed  to  carry  the  same  into  operation  and  effect,  ac- 
cording to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  thereof. 

'*  And  we,  the  people  of  South  Carohna,  to  the  end  that 
it  may  be  fully  understood  by  the  government  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  the  people  of  the  co-states,  that  we  are 
determined  to  maintain  this,  our  ordinance  and  declara- 
tion, at  every  hazard,  do  further  declare  that  we  will  not 
submit  to  the  application  of  force,  on  the  part  of  the  fede- 
ral government,  to  reduce  this  state  to  obedience;  but  that 
we  will  consider  the  passage  by  Congress  of  any  act  au- 
thorising the  employment  of  any  military  or  naval  force 
against  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  her  constituted  au- 
thorities or  citizens,  or  any  act  abolishing  or  closing  the 
ports  of  this  state,  or  any  of  them,  or  otherwise  obstruct- 

56 


442  APPENDIX. 

ing  the  free  ingress  and  egress  of  vessels  to  and  from  the 
said  ports ;  or  any  other  act  on  the  part  of  the  federal 
government  to  coerce  the  state,  shut  up  her  ports,  destroy 
her  commerce,  or  to  enforce  the  acts  hereby  declared  to 
be  null'  and  void,  otherwise  than  through  the  civil  tribu- 
nals of  the  country,  as  inconsistent  with  the  longer  con- 
tinuance of  South  Carolina  in  the  Union :  and  that  the 
people  of  this  state  will  thenceforth  hold  themselves  ab- 
solved from  all  further  obligation  to  maintain  or  preserve 
their  political  connection  with  the  people  of  other  states, 
and  will  forthwith  proceed  to  organize  a  separate  govern- 
ment, and  do  all  other  acts  and  things  which  sovereign 
and  independent  states  may  of  right  dou" 

Mr.  Hayne  found  himself  under  the  necessity  of  mak- 
ing a  concession  in  his  speech,  in  favour  of  the  New  Eng- 
land States,  in  consequence  of  the  general  principles  which 
he  maintained,  and  the  course  that  the  state  to  which  he 
belonged  were  about  to  pursue.  "  If,"  said  he,  "  the  au- 
thors of  the  Hartford  Convention  believed  that  '  gross,  de- 
liberate, and  palpable  violations  of  the  constitution'  had 
taken  place,  utterly  destructive  of  their  rights  and  inte- 
rests, I  should  be  the  last  man  to  deny  their  right  to  resort 
to  any  constitutional  measures  for  redress."  The  authors 
of  the  Hartford  Convention  not  only  believed,  but  they 
had  positive  and  undeniable  proof,  that  such  violations  of 
the  constitution  had  m/«c^  taken  place.  The  evidence 
of  this  is  contained  in  the  body  of  this  work.  The  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  violated  the  constitutional  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  New  P^ngland  States,  in  demanding 
detachments  of  their  militia,  to  be  placed  under  the  com- 
mand of  United  States  officers — in  attempting  to  raise 
troops  from  the  militia  by  a  conscription,  and  seamen  by 
impressment — and  to  enlist  minors  without  the  consent  of 
their  parents,  guardians,  and  masters.  These  are  plain^ 
specific  cases — they  were  "gross,  deliberate,  and  palpa- 
ble"— and   they  were  calculated  utterly  to   destroy  the 


APPENDIX.  44d 

rights  against  which  they  were  directed.     The  argument 
then  is  finished,  as  far  as  that  statement  is  concerned. 

But  this  is  not  the  principal  object  to  be  accomplished 
in  adverting  to  the  case  of  South  Carolina.  The  design 
is  to  compare  the  conduct  of  that  state,  in  the  year  1832, 
with  that  of  the  New  England  States,  in  the  year  1814. 

The  New  England  States  "believed"  that  the  national 
government  had  not  only  violated  the  constitution,  in  the 
several  particulars   above-mentioned,  but  they  had,   by 
their  mode  of  carrying  on  the  war,  thrown  upon  those 
states  the  necessity  of  defending  their  coast,  their  towns, 
and  their  families,  against  the  hostile  visits  and  invasions 
of  the  enemy,  and   at  the  same  time  refused  to  furnish 
them  with  either  men  or  money  for  their  own  protection. 
From  the  commencement  of  hostilities,  those  states  had 
been  informed  that  they  must  defend  themselves — and  this 
had  been  repeated  from  time  to  time,  until,  in  the  language 
of  Mr.  Hayne,  "  the  credit  of  the  government  was  nearly 
gone,  Washington  had  fallen,  the  whoFd.  coast  was  block- 
aded, and  an  immense  force,  collected  in  the  West  Indies, 
was  about  to  make  a  descent,  which  it  was  supposed  we 
had  no  means  of  resisting."    This  was  a  state  of  things  as 
fully  understood  and  realized  in  New  England,  in  the  au- 
tumn of  1814,  as  it  was  by  Mr.  Hayne  when  this  speech 
was  delivered  in  the  Senate,  in  1830.     They  had  seven 
hundred  miles  of  sea-coast  to  defend,  with  no  other  means 
than  those  which  they  were  able  themselves  to  furnish ; 
and  even  of  those,  the  national  government,  by  the  most 
unconstitutional  and  despotic  measures,  were  endeavour^ 
ing  to  deprive  them.    Under  such  circumstances,  the  Hart- 
ford Convention  was  appointed,  and  instructed  to  devise 
and  recommend  the  best  means  in  their  power  of  preserv- 
ing their  resources,  to  enable  the  states  to  fulfil  the  task 
which  the  national  government  had  imposed  upon  them, 
but,  to  let  every  thing  be  done  in  a  manner  consistent  with 
their  duties  and  obli<i:ations  to  the  United  States.  And  the 


444  APPENDIX. 

most  important  measure  recommended  by  the  Convention 
was,  that  the  New  England  States,  thus  deserted  and 
abandoned  by  the  government  of  the  United  States,  should 
make  application  to  Congress,  for  permission  to  use  their 
own  men,  and  their  own  money,  in  defence  of  their  own 
territory — their  towns,  their  property,  and  their  fire-sides, 
against  the  invasions  of  the  enemy.  "  Their  chief  object," 
says  Mr.  Haync,  "  was  to  keep  back  the  men  and  the 
money  of  'New  England  from  the  service  of  the  Union. 
The  history  of  the  case  proves  incontestibly,  that  this  was 
an  unfounded  assertion.  "  Their  chief  object  was,"  to  em- 
ploy their  men  and  their  money  in  the  service  of  the  Unit- 
ed States — for  it  was  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to 
provide  both  men  and  money,  for  the  defence  of  the  states 
against  the  enemy  which  they  had  brought  upon  them. 

*'But,"  says  Mr.  Hayne,  "  the  time  when,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which,  that  Convention  assembled,  as 
well  as  the  measures  they  recommended,  render  their  con- 
duct wholly  indefi^asible."  This  is  seriously  narrowing  the 
ground  of  complaint  against  the  Convention,  yielding  the 
right,  at  least  by  necessary  implication,  and  objecting  on- 
ly to  the  expediency  of  the  time  when  they  were  convened. 
But  so  far  from  this  being  a  well  founded  objection  against 
calling  the  Convention,  it  was  the  time,  and  the  circum- 
stances, which  not  only  justified  the  measure,  but  which 
rendered  it  indispensably  necessary.  The  danger  which 
hung  over  the  states  was  immediate  ;  and  the  circum- 
stances were  of  so  threatening  and  alarming  a  character, 
that  preparation  to  ward  off  that  danger  could  not  safely 
be  postponed  for  a  single  day.  And  such  was  the  import 
of  the  language  used  by  the  administration,  in  all  the  calls 
they  made  upon  the  New  England  States,  to  provide  the 
means  for  their  own  defence. 

But  what  says  the  *'  Ordinance"  of  the  South  Carolina 
Convention  ?  That  document  declares  the  laws  of  Con- 
gress therein  referred  to,  and  which  are  commonly  called 


APPENDIX. 


445 


the  tariff  laws,  null  and  void,  and  not  binding  upon  the  peo- 
ple of  that  state — it  declares  all  promises,  contracts,  and 
obligations,  for  the  securing  of  the  duties  imposed  by  those 
laws,  and  all  judicial  proceedings  in  affirmance  of  such 
promises,  contracts,  and  obligations,  also  null  and  void — 
that  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  constituted  authorities  of 
South  Carolina,  or  of  the  United  States,  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  such  duties  within  that  state,  but  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  adopt  measures  for  prevent- 
ing the  collection  of  the  duties,  and  to  arrest  the  operation 
of  the  acts  of  Congress  within  that  state,  and  all  the  au- 
thorities and  all  the  people  are  enjoined  to  obey  and  give 
effect  to  the  Ordinance.  It  then  proceeds  to  declare,  that 
the  validity  of  the  Ordinance  shall  not  be  drawn  in  ques- 
tion in  any  court  in  the  state,  that  no  appeal  shall  be  al- 
lowed from  the  state  court  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  that  no  copy  of  the  record  of  the  state 
court  shall  be  allowed  to  be  taken  for  the  purposes  of  an 
appeal ;  and  if  any  attempt  to  appeal  should  be  made,  the 
state  court  should  proceed  to  execute  their  own  judgments 
without  regard  to  such  appeal,  and  the  person  attempting 
to  take  it  should  be  punishable  for  a  contempt  of  court. 
The  Ordinance  advances  still  further,  and  declares,  that 
all  officers,  civil  and  military,  shall  take  an  oath  to  obey 
the  Ordinance,  and  for  omitting  to  do  so,  their  offices  shall 
be  vacated,  and  filled  anew,  as  in  the  case  of  death  or  re- 
signation; and  no  juror  shall  be  impannelled,  in  any  cause 
in  which  the  Ordinance  shall  be  drawn  into  question,  with- 
out having  first  taken  an  oath  to  obey  and  enforce  the 
Ordinance.  And,  finally,  it  is  declared,  that  the  state  will 
not  submit  to  the  application  of  force,  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  to  reduce  them  to  obedience;  but  if  Con- 
gress should  undertake  to  employ  military  or  naval  force 
against  them,  to  shut  up  their  ports,  destroy  their  com- 
merce, or  resort  to  any  other  means  of  enforcing  the  laws 
which  the  Ordinance  orders  to  be  null  and  void,  other  than 


446  APPENDIX. 

through  the  civil  tribunals  of  the  country,  such  a  course 
will  render  the  longer  continuance  of  South  Carolina  in 
the  Union  inconsistent,  and  that  they  will  thenceforth  hold 
themselves  absolved  from  all  further  connection  with  the 
other  states,  and  w^ill  proceed  to  organize  a  separate  inde- 
pendent government. 

This  is  the  case  of  South  Carolina,  placed  in  contrast 
with  that   of  the  New  England   States.     The  document 
which  contains  these  provisions,  was  prepared  under  the 
eye,  if  not  by  the  hand  of  the  same  Mr.  Hayne,  who  pro- 
nounced the  conduct  of  the  authors  of  the  Hartford  Con- 
vention "  utterly  indefensible."    This  declaration  referred 
to  the  time  when,  and  the  circumstances  under  which,  the 
Hartford  Convention   assembled.     That  time,  and  those 
circumstances,   have   been  repeatedly  alluded  to  and  de- 
scribed in  the  course  of  this'  work.     They  were  alarming 
and  portentous,  fraught  with   danger  and  distress  to  the 
country,  and  foreboding  ruin  to  the  Union  and  Constitution. 
Far  different  were  the  times  and  the  circumstances  when 
the   South  Carolina   Convention  passed   their  ordinance. 
Their  time  was  a  time  of  peace  and  prosperity.  The  coun- 
try was  pressed  by  no  enemy  from  without,  and  by  no  tu- 
mult or  insurrection  within.     Agriculture,  commerce,  and 
manufactures,  were  flourishing  beyond  all  former  exam- 
ple, and  the  country  was  advancing  in  numbers,  wealth, 
and  power,  in  a  degree  surprising  to  ourselves,  and  asto- 
nishing to  all  other  nations.  If  there  is  any  peculiar  merit 
on  the  part  of  South  Carolina,   in  choosing  this  halcyon 
period,  for  making  such  arrogant  claims,  and  for  throwing 
the  Union  into  a  state  of  discord,  fermentation,  and  ani- 
mosity, when  all  things  else  wei:e  at  peace,  it  would  not 
be  amiss  if  those  grounds  were  more  explicitly  stated.  At 
present,  they  will  be  disallowed  by  every  virtuous,  intelli- 
gent, and   patriotic  mind.     The  Hartford  Convention  re- 
commended no  measure  which  had  the  slightest  tendency 
to  prostrate  the  national   constitutiop^  or  to  destroy  the 


APPENDIX.  447 

Union.  Every  sentiment  expressed  in  the  South  Carolina 
ordinance  was  hostile  to  the  constitution,  and  every  mea- 
sure proposed  or  adopted,  was  calculated  to  dissolve  the 
Union.  The  propositions  of  the  Hartford  Convention, 
were  to  obtain  the  consent  and  approbation  of  the  gene- 
ral government  to  their  principal  measures ;  the  South 
Carolina  ordinance  denied  the  authority  of  that  govern- 
ment to  controul  them  in  the  case  about  which  they  com- 
plained, and  defied  their  power  to  execute  their  laws. 
The  Hartford  Convention  recommended  an  application  to 
Congress  for  permission  to  raise  troops  for  the  defence  of 
their  coasts ;  the  South  CaroHna  ordinance  provided  for 
the  raising  of  a  body  of  men  to  oppose  by  force  of  arms  the 
execution  of  the  laws  of  Congress,  and  to  raise  the  stan- 
dard of  rebclHon  against  the  government  of  the  nation. 

If  Mr.  Hayne  thought  the  conduct  of  the  authors  of  the 
Hartford  Convention  "  utterly  indefensible,"  what  must 
he  think  of  the  authors  of  the  South  Carolina  Ordinance.'* 
About  the  facts  in  the  two  cases  there  is  no  room  for  dis- 
pute. The  conclusions  which  those  facts  will  fairly  war- 
rant, will  be  drawn  by  the  community. 


ERRATA. 

The  reader  is  requested  to  correct  the  following  errors  in  the  foregoing  page*. 

Page  28,  line  14  from  the  top,  read  Jcing  instead  of  kings. 

32,  line  8  from  the  bottom,  read  strain  instead  of  train. 
46,  line  9  from  tlie  top,  read  18C4  instead  of  1801. 

126,  line  19  from  the  lop,  after  the  word  France,  the  words  teas  conducted  are  omitted^ 
166,  line  7  from  the  top,  instead  of  "  ia,"  after  "underscored,"  read  contain. 
•218,  line  4  from  the  top,  omit  the  words  "  and,"  to  the  end  of  the  line. 
219,  line  14  from  the  top,  insert  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  It  required  tome 
assurance. 
■  221,  line  4  from  the  top,  read  have  been  stated. 
{ 225,  line  2  from  the  top,  read  definitive  instead  of  definite. 
302,  line  8  from  the  bottom,  read  hostilities  having  been  commonc«d< 
361,  line  17  from  the  bottom,  read  with  the  respect. 


..^Jiib 


RETURN  TO:      CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
198  Main  Stacks 


LOAN  PERIOD     1 
Home  Use 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 
Books  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW. 


MAY  1  9  2004 


JUL  0  3  ZUU4 


FORM  NO.  DD6 
50M    5-03 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
Berkeley.  California  94720-gDOO 


YC  50514 


J^VYiahf- 


Sq 


1 


^el«i1 


I 


mm 


